Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I prefer taking what you need and giving what you can. Although we could all probably give a bit more I suppose.

So if I need a new car, I should just take the neighbours? And I think I can spare a box of Kraft Dinner, so I'll just give that to them and call it even?

That's ridiculous.

[Hershel]

I don't understand the point of this poll. Why shouldn't such a website be allowed to exist. Or is this referring to an incident involving a lawsuit that I'm not aware of.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Hershel

I don't understand the point of this poll. Why shouldn't such a website be allowed to exist. Or is this referring to an incident involving a lawsuit that I'm not aware of.

You are new here. I will let you in on a little secret. The real question the OP is asking is: "Do you think the OP should get everything in life for free, YEA or NAY". He just rephrases it so it isn't quite as obvious. But he sees every yes vote as a confirmation that he is entitled to just take anything he wants.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Hershel

I don't understand the point of this poll. Why shouldn't such a website be allowed to exist. Or is this referring to an incident involving a lawsuit that I'm not aware of.

So you believe that is perfectly fine for anyone to obtain any knowledge that they wish to and host this knowledge on their own servers for anyone to access?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by The Terminator

So if I need a new car, I should just take the neighbours? And I think I can spare a box of Kraft Dinner, so I'll just give that to them and call it even?

That's ridiculous.

Yes, new cars and Kraft dinners are pretty ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Hershel

I don't understand the point of this poll. Why shouldn't such a website be allowed to exist. Or is this referring to an incident involving a lawsuit that I'm not aware of.

It was a covert question that has nothing to do with knowledge and everything to do with piracy. If it was purely about knowledge, the pollster would have been perfectly happy with the multitude of websites that already make information available through very liberal licenses.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

So you believe that is perfectly fine for anyone to obtain any knowledge that they wish to and host this knowledge on their own servers for anyone to access?

You are not talking about knowledge. Knowledge is independent of its representation. You are talking about information. Information is a particular representation of knowledge.

Creating a website that contains the sum of human knowledge would be almost legal. There are a few things that are forbidden, but you can get away with a lot provided that it is unbiased. Creating a website that copies information (i.e. the bits) from one place to another is frequently illegal, even when the author offered up that information free of charge.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

You are not talking about knowledge. Knowledge is independent of its representation. You are talking about information. Information is a particular representation of knowledge.

Creating a website that contains the sum of human knowledge would be almost legal. There are a few things that are forbidden, but you can get away with a lot provided that it is unbiased. Creating a website that copies information (i.e. the bits) from one place to another is frequently illegal, even when the author offered up that information free of charge.

I think I understand what you are saying, in your mind creating a website that has information about a book would be fine but actually posting the book to go along with the information about the book would not be fine? Instead we should post one click purchase links through Amazon?

I must admit to not quite knowing what knowledge is, it's easier to just say the universe is the sum of all knowledge.

[Freeshadow]

He isn't even talking about information as this thread went on he prove that it's free entertainment he wants. Unfortunately he didn't follow my remark that the only way to have free entertainment on a regular basis is to put ones hands in ones pants, alas he still uses them for typing instead.

[bill_mchale]

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.

Leonardo, please create the most beautiful portrait of a woman that man has ever seen; when you are done, I will draw a mustache on it.

Does that help you see why it might be a disincentive?

Or how about, spend 5 years of your life writing a novel that publishers love.. but they refuse to pay you for it and also are going to make changes to it without your permission. Your morally complex antagonist is going to be replaced with a mustache twirling villain because readers hate morally ambiguous villains.

Or every idiot with a word processor is going to add a Mary/Marty-Sue character to the novel and republish it so they can show all their friends how cool they are.

--
Bill

--
Bill

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I must admit to not quite knowing what knowledge is, it's easier to just say the universe is the sum of all knowledge.

Perhaps easier but what does it mean?

I think Knowledge in the context of this discussion is what someone knows through actual experience. Not what they read in a book or see on TV.

For example I may know that I am not wearing socks or it is raining.

I may think I know what makes people happy, how to beat the slots, or the best way to educate people. Until I have made everybody in the world happy, taught everybody everything or won all the money in the world on the slots then that is still pure conjecture and wishful thinking on my part.

Much of what you refer to as knowledge is fiction and has little similarity to real life and little educating value.

The non-fiction is just a method or an opinion shared by one or many. Access to these methods or opinions whether free or not can be good or bad. Good in that they start you thinking, bad when they do all of your thinking for you. (Assuming that they are right to start with)

If you base your knowledge on other people's opinions that you read in books then you lose the power of reasoning for yourself and become a parrot.

Helen

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Leonardo, please create the most beautiful portrait of a woman that man has ever seen; when you are done, I will draw a mustache on it.

Does that help you see why it might be a disincentive?

Or how about, spend 5 years of your life writing a novel that publishers love.. but they refuse to pay you for it and also are going to make changes to it without your permission. Your morally complex antagonist is going to be replaced with a mustache twirling villain because readers hate morally ambiguous villains.

Or every idiot with a word processor is going to add a Mary/Marty-Sue character to the novel and republish it so they can show all their friends how cool they are.

--
Bill

--
Bill

Those examples are fine and dandy like sour candy, what's to be upset about? Your second example presupposes the continuation of a system that allows artists to sell their work on the network. We envision a network where the act of selling is disabled, where it is only possible to buy. In this way no one would be able to steal anothers creation for profit. It's not a requirement for an end to copyright but it goes a long way toward realizing that end I think.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Perhaps easier but what does it mean?

I think Knowledge in the context of this discussion is what someone knows through actual experience. Not what they read in a book or see on TV.

Much of what you refer to as knowledge is fiction and has little similarity to real life and little educating value.

If you base your knowledge on other people's opinions that you read in books then you lose the power of reasoning for yourself and become a parrot.

Helen

We can just assume everything is fiction, if it makes the discussion easier. We can assume all fiction is entertainment as well, but what we cannot say is that fiction has little educating value. Fiction is all we have to educate ourselves with. We take in the world around us and create fictionalized representations of the world, occasionally we spread these internalized fictions to others and the cycle continues.

Logic and reasoning are subjective. I feel it is quite reasonable to access any text that I wish with no government mandated access restrictions. Perhaps you feel it is not reasonable to do this.

It is much much simpler to view ourselves as isolated individuals in a disconnected universe, rather than equal parts of the infinite, but it is quite obvious that the latter is the case. What this means is that no one has more or less ownership of any text than anyone else.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Those examples are fine and dandy like sour candy, what's to be upset about? Your second example presupposes the continuation of a system that allows artists to sell their work on the network. We envision a network where the act of selling is disabled, where it is only possible to buy. In this way no one would be able to steal anothers creation for profit. It's not a requirement for an end to copyright but it goes a long way toward realizing that end I think.

"We envision"? Who made you Queen of England?

If someone is buying, then someone is selling. If it is not the creator or the publisher, its the state. I am sure there are lots of authors who would love to write for the state....

--
Bill

[QuantumIguana]

Logic and reasoning are subjective. I feel it is quite reasonable to access any text that I wish with no government mandated access restrictions. Perhaps you feel it is not reasonable to do this.

No, they aren't subjective. You simply haven't been able to provide any logical support for your position.

It is much much simpler to view ourselves as isolated individuals in a disconnected universe, rather than equal parts of the infinite, but it is quite obvious that the latter is the case. What this means is that no one has more or less ownership of any text than anyone else.

That conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.