Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes there is something stopping me from doing that, and that something is called copyright. Why should I have to ask permission from an author before reworking their text and redistributing it?

For the same reason you can't cut down someone else's tree, or drive off with someone else's car, or walk into the Louvre and paint a moustache on the Mona Lisa. It's not yours.

For free of course, all proceeds to the author

What proceeds? This entire thread you've been saying authors should work for free because you don't feel like paying for your entertainment.

Originally Posted by AndrewH

This entire thread you've been saying authors should work for free because you don't feel like paying for your entertainment.

Clearly you're missing the point since you're saying entertainment in the place of knowledge. I mean everyone knows that the latest sci-fi, fantasy, mystery, romance, etc. novel is all about knowledge and has nothing to do with entertainment.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

Are you really asking this question? The author created the work not you. You have no right to rework the text without their permission.

Are you telling me I should not be able to download a text, edit it to my hearts content, and reupload it to the network with all attribution?

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Are you telling me I should not be able to download a text, edit it to my hearts content, and reupload it to the network with all attribution?

BINGO!

Of course, there are exceptions. You can do this with certain creative commons and open source licenses, because the author gave you permission to (through the license they offered it under). You can also do so with works where the author granted you permission through other means (e.g. directly) or for works that have fallen into the public domain. Since modern copyright terms ensure that the author is both dead and most thoroughly decomposed, the moral imperative to compensate the author is gone.

You can also share knowledge derived from a work under restrictive copyright terms, but doing so requires creating a work of your own. That means that you have to do a lot more than editing. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it isn't. Freedom demands the free exchange of knowledge, so you are free to steal someone else's ideas. Freedom does not necessitate stealing someone else's words, so you are not allowed to do so.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Are you telling me I should not be able to download a text, edit it to my hearts content, and reupload it to the network with all attribution?

Yes. You should not be able to download Harry Potter and add a Giggleton character to it.

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The way most of you describe timebanks makes it sound like money. I view timebanks as just a bit of bookkeeping to keep things organized.

Here you have clearly shown, not understanding the concept of money. The saying "Time is money." is to be understood literally, because money itself IS only a bookkeeping tool to keep things simpler. The difference is only on which resource its value is based on. While ATM mankind uses rare resources like gold or silver to do so (depending on which currency is used) nobody prevents the definition of time as a base for a currency system. What I pointed out in my previous post were the troubles of value determination in such case.
This is exactly why it is preferred to have the value transfer resources (money) more detached from the exchanged goods: it raises the versatility in comparison to bartering, which can become a complicated business. (As I actually like to swap goods and have taken part in a web community dedicated to this, I know what I speak about.) Another (than money) example of such a value transfer currency detached from the acquired goods are Experience Points used in role-playing games.

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Are you telling me I should not be able to download a text, edit it to my hearts content, and reupload it to the network with all attribution?

Yes, unless it's in the public domain or the author has expressed their wish that anyone can download and edit their book for free.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

Yes. You should not be able to download Harry Potter and add a Giggleton character to it.

This doesn't seem right to me. How would something like that disincentive an artist to create? In fact, allowing me to do that sounds like an incentive to create.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

Here you have clearly shown, not understanding the concept of money. The saying "Time is money." is to be understood literally, because money itself IS only a bookkeeping tool to keep things simpler.

I suppose money is convenient but it does come with a cost. Is its ease of use worth all the destruction caused by its use?

Originally Posted by Giggleton

This doesn't seem right to me. How would something like that disincentive an artist to create? In fact, allowing me to do that sounds like an incentive to create.

In certain circles it is an incentive to create. That is why things such as the creative commons licenses and open source licenses exist. For other people, that would be a disincentive to create because they want or need to see some sort of compensation for their work.

In both cases, it is far better to make the more restrictive case the default case since creators can always decide to give permission to open their work up to modification. It is far more difficult to do the opposite.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

In certain circles it is an incentive to create. That is why things such as the creative commons licenses and open source licenses exist. For other people, that would be a disincentive to create because they want or need to see some sort of compensation for their work.

In both cases, it is far better to make the more restrictive case the default case since creators can always decide to give permission to open their work up to modification. It is far more difficult to do the opposite.

So I am free to think about adding new characters to an existing text, but I am not free to copy these characters down onto a physical medium?? Or does this thought regulation only occur if a modified work is made public? What then constitutes public display of a modified work??

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I suppose money is convenient but it does come with a cost. Is its ease of use worth all the destruction caused by its use?

What do you think it destroys? I guess you prefer bartering?

[Freeshadow]

He simply doesn't understand that the usage of money significantly reduces transaction costs since there is no need to search for the trading partner who offers exactly what you need for exactly what you want to pay with.
@giggleton: see, I'm no economics expert myself, but I think you better should go and make use of some free available knowledge out there which you have so vocally demanded, before you just go on babbling hot air.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by The Terminator

What do you think it destroys? I guess you prefer bartering?

It tends to corrupt people into believing that it is the sole means by which our civilization exists. Pretty destructive. I prefer taking what you need and giving what you can. Although we could all probably give a bit more I suppose.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I prefer taking what you need and giving what you can.

I don't think anyone here believes that you are serious about the second part.

You should try working, so that you make a little money and CAN give more. Just roaming the internet as the great prophet of freeloading will never improve your situation.

And what you are suggesting is a subsistence society, that produces just enough so that everyone can survive. Where would the ebooks and devices to read on them come from?