Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[mrscoach]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If this spare time is so valuable, and more of it results in more worthwhile art, why are we not devoting more resources to create more spare time? I would love to be able to wake up and say, "Well, looks like all my time is spare today, I think I will create."

Davinci's work was his art.

How are we to devote more resources to create more spare time? Is the government to pay artists so they can create? If so, how is it decided who to pay? And just where would the money come from? If you don't want to pay each author individually for their work (making it their job) then how is the 'group' picked. How are new authors found?

Do you have a job you get paid for? If so, how would you feel if your boss said "you should be happy just to do the work and you won't get paid". I have a hunch you wouldn't work for too long for that boss.

If someone takes a vow of poverty they cannot expect everyone else to support them in any and all endeavors they wish to pursue. By that thinking then everyone should do the same and we would all starve to death. why should the farmers plant and harvest, or profit from their labors?

I think you will find that a truly Utopian society has never successfully existed, there are always someone who gets the shaft and has to do all the work.

Davinci had someone who supported him and he was paid for his work. He didn't create for free and just give his stuff away.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

If someone takes a vow of poverty they cannot expect everyone else to support them in any and all endeavors they wish to pursue. By that thinking then everyone should do the same and we would all starve to death. why should the farmers plant and harvest, or profit from their labors?

The Farm Commissar will determine which farmers should be compensated. That's been tried in the past, after all.

And I think a vow of poverty doesn't mean "everything for free!"

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Sophistry again!

If I wrote something, I can establish ways of proving that authorship (whether I do or not is a separate question). On the flip side, you cannot prove that everything that ever will be written has already been written.

As proof, I ask you to provide me all the new books that will be published in 2023 AD; you have twenty-four hours starting now (I will even pay for them)

--
Bill

Would you accept the idea of every book published in 2023 AD?

Originally Posted by mrscoach

How are we to devote more resources to create more spare time? Is the government to pay artists so they can create? If so, how is it decided who to pay? And just where would the money come from? If you don't want to pay each author individually for their work (making it their job) then how is the 'group' picked. How are new authors found?

Yes, discovering who to compensate from the realm of infinite texts seems to be a tough question. Perhaps if we instituted a maximum wage the problem would become simpler.

[elcreative]

No... giggles just wants a commissar for everything as usual... fails to note that it's been tried and failed... why someone in the US ignores the lessons of recent history ????

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by elcreative

No... giggles just wants a commissar for everything as usual... fails to note that it's been tried and failed... why someone in the US ignores the lessons of recent history ????

Systems tend to fail because of improper planning. This is not to say that planning itself is inherently flawed.

Is there no other reason for copyright than to attempt to ensure contribution to the creator? Just so everything's clear.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Is there no other reason for copyright than to attempt to ensure contribution to the creator? Just so everything's clear.

1. Ensuring that the creators are compensated based upon the perceived value of the work, as determined by the market.
2. Ensuring that everyone in the chain of creating the work is compensated. This includes authors, editors, typesetters, marketers, etc..
3. Restricting access to a work. Certain publications are intended for limited audiences, and copyright is one means of doing so.

Yes, a lot of that has to do with compensating the creators and thus ensuring their contributions. But it is important since other mechanisms of encouraging the development of new works is controversial and often ineffective. Consider something like government arts funding. Many people are opposed to it because they don't see the value of the work. In a lot of cases it is because that work either has no value or has value to a very limited audience. Market forces diminish that argument because a work that succeeds in the marketplace must have value to the people who are willing to pay for it.

I would also argue that copyright offers fewer restrictions by imposing more restrictions. In a copyright model, it is possible for creators to offer their work under less restrictive licenses (e.g. FLOSS and Creative Commons). In most countries it is possible for creators to place their work into the public domain. And yes, it is possible for creators to work within the confines of the traditional copyright based business models.

[Pulpmeister]

Mmmm - let me see if I understand it.

Creative people should create for nothing for the benefit of non-creative people. Actors act for free, playwrights write for free, performances be put on for free, movie crews work unpaid using free equipment and supplies provided free, to make movies delivered for free and shown for free in, I assume, theatres donated by kindly zillionaires as a hobby, or on DVDs supplied free by volunteer manufacturers, or over free broadband by generous ISPs who do it for free using free equipment, no doubt eat free food too, drive cars they got for free--

Knowledge like anything else is a creation of human endeavour, and since the acquisition of knowledge, however abstruse, is often tortuous and time consuming, and its creator needs to eat and live while creating, somebody, somewhere has to pay for it. This has been so since our ancestors were painting animals in deep caves, or chipping hand axes.

The mantra that "knowledge wants to be free" is the slogan of the parasite, and also the ignorant.

"Knowledge" has no wants or needs. The people who create it, however, do have.

Copyright, while by no means perfect, is the current means of ensuring that creators of knowledge - eg writers - can actually exist to create. If there's a better one, it's not state support.

After all, that's not free either.

Having the government or whoever paying for "knowledge" to be "free" simply means taking money out of my pocket to give to someone else. I end up having to pay for "knowledge" that I have never heard of and don't want, for the benefit of someone else, instead of only paying for those things I do want, for the benefit of myself, which I'm happy to do.

[QuantumIguana]

Knowledge isn't copyrightable. The books that you learned it from are. Everyone builds on the knowledge that came before, there's nothing parasitic about that. What is parasitic is expecting the books to be free before their copyright has expired.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Would you accept the idea of every book published in 2023 AD?

Nope... You said it could be argued

<i>"Everything that has been, is, or will ever be written is already so."</i>

The idea is not sufficient. When I buy a written work, I am not buying the idea behind the work, but the actual work itself. I can probably give you the idea of every book I have ever read... and I assure you that you will not find it an adequate replacement for the actual books. Stories are not simply plot outlines and character descriptions, they are also about how they are told. Likewise, two technical books can contain identical information, yet one be good and the other awful based on how they present that information. An author who can tell a good story, or present information in an easy to understand manner deserves to be compensated for their efforts.

--
Bill

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Knowledge isn't copyrightable. The books that you learned it from are. Everyone builds on the knowledge that came before, there's nothing parasitic about that. What is parasitic is expecting the books to be free before their copyright has expired.

Is imagining a world where money is not needed parasitic as well?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Is imagining a world where money is not needed parasitic as well?

You haven't imagined a world without money. You have simply asserted that authors shouldn't be paid, unless it is by a Book Commissar, and it has been clearly demonstrated how bad an idea a Book Commissar would be.

[DiapDealer]

Is imagining a world where money is not needed parasitic as well?

Still drinking that Venus Project, Jacques Fresco Kool Aid, I see.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You haven't imagined a world without money. You have simply asserted that authors shouldn't be paid, unless it is by a Book Commissar, and it has been clearly demonstrated how bad an idea a Book Commissar would be.

Your book commissar flaw depends on our society not being able to compensate authors without a paywall forcing them to do so. Meaning you think people won't pay for books that they can download for free. Nevermind all that gibberish about people not placing value on things that they don't spend money on, that's just 20th century psychobabble.

What I assert is that authors shouldn't be able to sell books, readers will still be able to buy of course, and so authors will be paid. This is called a free market.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Your book commissar flaw depends on our society not being able to compensate authors without a paywall forcing them to do so.

Society is good at funding things that are used by many, such as schools, roads and parks. It is terrible at things that are used by individuals, such as books. The Book Commissar is not likely to select books that I want to read, I am not going to surrender my choice in books to some Book Commissar.

Meaning you think people won't pay for books that they can download for free.

You keep insisting that you won't.

Nevermind all that gibberish about people not placing value on things that they don't spend money on, that's just 20th century psychobabble.

Yes, I can see why you would want me to avoid that. It is very convenient to avoid things that make mincemeat out of one's arguments. It's like saying "What is 2+2, and nevermind all that gibberish about 4!" You value books at zero dollars and zero cents.

What I assert is that authors shouldn't be able to sell books, readers will still be able to buy of course, and so authors will be paid. This is called a free market.

Nonsense. There is no such thing as buying without selling. If I can't sell, you can't possibly buy.

[mrscoach]

Giggles, you astound and flabbergast me. Your Utopian society without money IS NOT feasible. Are you assuming everyone will work for the greater good of the society as a whole? I can assure you that not all will. What happens then?

If there is no money then we are on a barter system, correct? Or are you assuming the government is in charge of all agriculture and manufacturing and will have bread lines and soup kitchens?

If money is not needed then why have humans used SOMETHING as a monetary system from so early on?

I guess you are like the Trident commercial and will work for gum.

I forgot to ask, how can a reader buy a book if it isn't sold??? Selling has to take place for buying to take place. Oops, no money to pay. Back to the bread line.