Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

So you think if people were educated about the problems of not compensating authors, they would voluntarily give a donation to the author, as if the author is a beggar with a bowl?

I think it would make more sense then that anti copying propaganda the MPAA tried to shove down kids throats a few years back.

When we read to children perhaps we should now spend a bit of time talking about the creator of the book as well.

[PKFFW]

Giggleton,

You seem to be advocating a Star Trek like Utopian where everyones material needs are catered for and thus everyone can do whatever they want to do and not worry about payment. Thus, writers will write, singers sing, engineers build new machines etc etc. As a Star Trek fan myself I would love to see this Utopian society come into existence.

However, at present this society does not exist. Yet you seem to be advocating the instigation of one aspect of this society without thought for the other equally important aspect. That is, you seem to want your desire to read any book you want taken care of without the requirement for the material need of the author to put food on their table to also have been taken care of.

All your suggestions thus far entail some sort of group payment from the society to ensure you get to read whatever you like. Higher taxes, a group consensus of what is good enough to be paid for, a book commission via internet 2.0 that will somehow ensure authors are compensated for their time and effort in writing. None of your suggestions actually entail the "free access to knowledge" but rather entail society paying for you to read whatever you like. In essence your suggestions are no different to the current method in which authors are paid for their work by people who pay for the books. The only difference in your model is that someone else pays for you to read the book.

Further, you have stated quite clearly in the past that you believe you have the right to read any book you want for free, to copy said book and to pass said copy on to anyone you like for free. You have further stated that you have indeed actually accessed and read books in the past without compensating the author of said book.

So if you yourself feel that you have the right to read any book you like for free and you have actually read many books without compensating the author, why do you keep suggesting that if everyone got free access to all books they would all be willing to pay the author? Are others more altruistic than yourself? Are they simply less greedy? What makes the rest of society so different to yourself that they would seemingly be willing to pay when you, the advocate of free access to all knowledge, are not willing to pay?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Giggleton,

You seem to be advocating a Star Trek like Utopian where everyones material needs are catered for and thus everyone can do whatever they want to do and not worry about payment. Thus, writers will write, singers sing, engineers build new machines etc etc. As a Star Trek fan myself I would love to see this Utopian society come into existence.

However, at present this society does not exist.

So if you yourself feel that you have the right to read any book you like for free and you have actually read many books without compensating the author, why do you keep suggesting that if everyone got free access to all books they would all be willing to pay the author? Are others more altruistic than yourself? Are they simply less greedy? What makes the rest of society so different to yourself that they would seemingly be willing to pay when you, the advocate of free access to all knowledge, are not willing to pay?

Might as well start trying to create it now.

Well I have paid for a few books in the past year. Maybe ten, and I read a few hundred. I think if I had to pay retail price for all those books I read I wouldn't have been able to buy food or pay the rent. Meaning I CANNOT pay for all the books I have read, but I would have if I could. I pay about 50 dollars a month for internet access, it has always seemed to me that a large portion of this access fee should be going to the content creators rather than to the telcom executives. It is easy to imagine the negative reactions of some that would surround such a scheme, but change is always hard I suppose.

Members of a society must depend on one another, that is the nature of society. It is in everyone's best interest for everyone to read everything that they wish to. Just my two cents.

Lately I have also been thinking of the psychology of payment. I disregard the idea that we have an aversion to placing a worth on something when we do not have to pay for it. I feel the opposite in fact. I find myself paying for art that is available for free. I haven't spent much to be sure, but there is the definite feeling of knowing what you are paying for when you are able to listen to, read, or watch a text in its entirety before paying.

The payment is usually sent directly to the creator so there is more of a connection there as well.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Might as well start trying to create it now.

Agreed.

However, almost 100% of your posts focus only on creating that side of the Utopia that favours you. That is, the side in which your desire to read anything you want for free is catered for.

The Utopia wont work unless both sides are catered for.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well I have paid for a few books in the past year. Maybe ten, and I read a few hundred. I think if I had to pay retail price for all those books I read I wouldn't have been able to buy food or pay the rent. Meaning I CANNOT pay for all the books I have read, but I would have if I could.

Firstly there are ways to be able to fill every spare moment you have with reading whatever you want, including copyrighted material, at no or very little cost. There are libraries, borrowing from friends and family, free books such as the Baen library or similar set ups, joining a purchasing group, the public domain just to name a few. In this way you should not even have enough spare reading time in your day to have to resort to obtaining copyrighted material without compensating the author.

As for the idea that you would pay if you could, I see no evidence of that. All your posts indicate that you only pay for what you choose to pay for. Anything else you choose not to pay for and believe it is your right to do so. The fact you have chosen to pay for a few of the books you have read does not serve as any sort of proof that you would pay for everything if you could, specially in light of your repeated claims to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I pay about 50 dollars a month for internet access, it has always seemed to me that a large portion of this access fee should be going to the content creators rather than to the telcom executives. It is easy to imagine the negative reactions of some that would surround such a scheme, but change is always hard I suppose.

Content creators make money in other ways, most notably by people who want their creations paying for them. The $50 a month you pay for internet is for access to the internet, not for the content itself.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Members of a society must depend on one another, that is the nature of society. It is in everyone's best interest for everyone to read everything that they wish to. Just my two cents.

Absolutely members of society must depend on one another.

However, from your posts all I see is your desire to have other members of society support your desire to read anything you want for free. I have never seen anything in your posts that suggest you would be equally prepared to support those other members of society. If anything I see just the opposite since your fundamental position is that the individual should not have to pay for what they want to read unless they want to, which you obviously do not. So you are expecting the author to support you but are unwilling to support the author in return.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Lately I have also been thinking of the psychology of payment. I disregard the idea that we have an aversion to placing a worth on something when we do not have to pay for it. I feel the opposite in fact. I find myself paying for art that is available for free. I haven't spent much to be sure, but there is the definite feeling of knowing what you are paying for when you are able to listen to, read, or watch a text in its entirety before paying.

The payment is usually sent directly to the creator so there is more of a connection there as well.

This is all well and good and it's nice that you sometimes feel like paying for something. However, regardless of the feel good aspect of occasionally dropping a couple of dollars as a magnanimous gesture for something you could have gotten for free, your position still remains fundamentally unchanged. That is, you should only have to pay for what you want to pay for and anything you do not want to pay for should be provided at the expense of society.

Again, that is a lopsided implementation of the Utopian idea you claim to espouse. The Utopia will only work if you are willing to implement it in full, which you seem unwilling to do.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Agreed.

However, almost 100% of your posts focus only on creating that side of the Utopia that favours you. That is, the side in which your desire to read anything you want for free is catered for.

The Utopia wont work unless both sides are catered for.

Firstly there are ways to be able to fill every spare moment you have with reading whatever you want, including copyrighted material, at no or very little cost. There are libraries, borrowing from friends and family, free books such as the Baen library or similar set ups, joining a purchasing group, the public domain just to name a few. In this way you should not even have enough spare reading time in your day to have to resort to obtaining copyrighted material without compensating the author.

However, from your posts all I see is your desire to have other members of society support your desire to read anything you want for free. I have never seen anything in your posts that suggest you would be equally prepared to support those other members of society. If anything I see just the opposite since your fundamental position is that the individual should not have to pay for what they want to read unless they want to, which you obviously do not. So you are expecting the author to support you but are unwilling to support the author in return.

Love of money is the root of all evil.

Firstly, Yes I could spend my days browsing the government mandated public domain, or I could continue to see all knowledge as the public domain. Why should my choice of reading material affect the ability of an author to put food on their table?? Are you suggesting that when a work is uploaded to the network, those without money or those who do not believe in money should have to wait a century before being allowed to read it? That sounds like censorship to me, what does it sound like to you?

Systemic problems are problems of the system, not of the individual.

I would be happy to support authors that I have enjoyed reading. Perhaps not monetarily, but that is not the only means of support as I'm sure you are aware. Once we abandon the antiquated notion of copyright, I will be able to freely distribute texts... As will everyone else.

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

So you think if people were educated about the problems of not compensating authors, they would voluntarily give a donation to the author, as if the author is a beggar with a bowl?

this is the exact reason why I told him he could easily pay all the books he wants to read if he 'd put half the effort he invests in this thread into begging. wanted him to try out what he demands from authors.

[wannabee]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

..................................... Once we abandon the antiquated notion of copyright, I will be able to freely distribute texts... As will everyone else.

We can replicate music, videos and books with nothing but electrons for free
Now we just need the food replicators for Giggleton!

I think you chose the wrong avatar.

Spoiler:

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

those without money or those who do not believe in money should have to wait a century before being allowed to read it?

Yes, they have no right to someone else's property just because they can't afford it. Or are too lazy to make money because they "Don't Believe" (Seriously, go squat in the forest if you don't wan't to work. Money makes the world go round) in it.

It really shouldn't be seen like this; "A digital book didn't cost anything to make, so it should be free". I think we have to view it as physical property.

And really? Most people who can afford to buy an eReader can afford to buy books.

[QuantumIguana]

I would be happy to support authors that I have enjoyed reading. Perhaps not monetarily, but that is not the only means of support as I'm sure you are aware.

If spitting in their faces is support, then yes, you support them.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

this is the exact reason why I told him he could easily pay all the books he wants to read if he 'd put half the effort he invests in this thread into begging. wanted him to try out what he demands from authors.

Or he could put half the effort into working Big G probably never considered that option. He could work in our garden and I might consider supporting him. Though not monetarily, of course.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Love of money is the root of all evil.

So says the good book of one of the richest organisation on planet Earth. hhhmmmm

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Firstly, Yes I could spend my days browsing the government mandated public domain, or I could continue to see all knowledge as the public domain.

I notice you conveniently ignore all the suggestions I put forward of how you could read many a free book that is not in the public domain. Just from libraries and borrowing from friends and family I think I could fill and entire years worth of reading copyrighted books for free. By the time I got through them all there would be more for the next years reading.

Says a lot about the value you place on your principles if the effort of borrowing from a friend or library is too much trouble to uphold said principles.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Why should my choice of reading material affect the ability of an author to put food on their table??

So again, for all your talk about the Utopian Internet 2.0 and everything being free, you still come back to the fact that you want to read something and couldn't care less about the author of that work.

Sounds less and less like a Utopia and more and more like everyone should just give Giggleton whatever he likes and to hell with everybody else.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Are you suggesting that when a work is uploaded to the network, those without money or those who do not believe in money should have to wait a century before being allowed to read it?

I don't know of any library waiting list for any book that is a century long. Do you?

Originally Posted by Giggleton

That sounds like censorship to me, what does it sound like to you?

Nice red herring but no. No one is censoring what you can read. They are merely saying that if you want to read that thing you have to pay for it. If you can't afford it then you have to go on a waiting list at the local library or borrow it from a friend or wait for a sale etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Systemic problems are problems of the system, not of the individual.

Absolutely. However you haven't pointed out any systemic problem. You have pointed out the fact that you do not want to pay for anything you read. You have suggested society, through higher taxes, should pay for anything you want to read.

That isn't a systemic problem, nor is your solution a systemic solution.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I would be happy to support authors that I have enjoyed reading. Perhaps not monetarily, but that is not the only means of support as I'm sure you are aware. Once we abandon the antiquated notion of copyright, I will be able to freely distribute texts... As will everyone else.

Of course money is not the only means of support. However, in our current society it is the means by which authors, along with everyone else involved in the supply chain that gets you that book you want to read for free, provide for themselves and their families.

I find it interesting too that you should mention money not being the only means of support when all of your suggestions for implementing this Internet 2.0 Utopia center on society paying money to authors through higher taxes in order for you to read whatever you want without having to pay any money.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Love of money is the root of all evil.

I have never met anyone who loves money as much as you do. Even rewarding others with a few bucks for providing you with days of entertainment is beneath you.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Or he could put half the effort into working Big G probably never considered that option. He could work in our garden and I might consider supporting him. Though not monetarily, of course.

Working means that you can pay for all the books you can read because: (1) you have more money; and (2) you have less time. (Of the two, lack of time may make the larger difference).

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

So again, for all your talk about the Utopian Internet 2.0 and everything being free, you still come back to the fact that you want to read something and couldn't care less about the author of that work.

I don't know of any library waiting list for any book that is a century long. Do you?

What I meant was that why are we content with a system that gives us the capability to read whatever we wish while not having mechanisms in place to reward those who have written what we read?

Eventually funds for printed books will run out, and then quasi funds for ebooks will run out as well. What is the library to do then? Tell you to pay more for more books... In other words, most likely raised taxes.

Underutilizing a technology could be considered immoral.

[Freeshadow]

I don't believe in money.
I just use it. It's a tool; nothing more and nothing less.
no need for beliefs there.
or do you need to believe in screwdrivers?
If you don't believe in money and think this is nesessary to use it; why do you pay (as you said) money for your netconn?
If you were thinking the way you state to do, you would be leading some kind of self-sustainment aimed life somewhere in the wilderness instead of preaching some kind of wannabe-half-communism. (freeloadism)

working for each other out of pure kindness? See, I like freedom. I also like to choose whom I want to treat with kindness by myself. T'is the difference between private life and business. I don't want to befriend everyone I do something for or need to be the cooks pal when I decide to eat outplace. money as commonly accepted value counter spares a lot of social troubles.
you don't need to blow sugar in every ones a55 to assure to be served. no fears wether they share or tolerate your beliefs/tastes/ethnic origin or f* preferences.
you don't need to be one of "them" whoever they are.
wanna live in a money-less comune dependent on every other members acceptance? Make it so.
I d choose hell instead.