Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

If an author writes a novel he doesn't like, he should get to decide not to distribute it. If an author (or the publisher) wants to sell a work, they get to set the price. If enough potential readers decide the level of compensation is unjust, I assure you the price will drop.

--
Bill

This is just where we disagree, I am free to say that you are wrong. An author should not be able to set a price on their work. They are allowed to upload to the network. Knowledge distribution should not depend on the democracy of whether or not this or that group of people think a price is unjust. Knowledge and its effects are specific to individuals.

Libraries are nice but a library that contains all uploaded texts is better. Why do we not yet have access to this library?

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

An author should not be able to set a price on their work.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

They are allowed to upload to the network.

That is pretty generous of you. Is this the only thing they are allowed to do with their work? They should write and post it to the internet and then you can leech to your heart's content.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

This is just where we disagree, I am free to say that you are wrong. An author should not be able to set a price on their work. They are allowed to upload to the network. Knowledge distribution should not depend on the democracy of whether or not this or that group of people think a price is unjust. Knowledge and its effects are specific to individuals.

But we are not really talking about knowledge here. Knowledge is not limited by copyright. If I write a book describing a new invention, even if the invention is under patent, anyone else is free to use that knowledge anyway they want (as long as they don't violate a patent). They can even develop a new presentation of that knowledge and upload it to the internet.

What you are talking about not just the knowledge, we are talking about the work itself. An author might spend years working on a novel, both writing it and editing it; he might have poured every effort into making sure that every word and every comma is just right. Why then should he not be entitled to enjoy some of the fruits of that labor?

Lets remember, without copyright, the author might just decide not to publish in the first place.

--
Bill

[Freeshadow]

AGAIN: ENTERTAINMENT ISN'T KNOWLEDGE!!! It's a luxury good which you seriously have the nerve to request served for free.
So you are seriously denying people the freedom to decide what should be allowed to be done to their own work. Since the commonly accepted definition of freedom is that everyone should be allowed to do everything as long as nobody else is harmed by his actions you promote creativity enslaved.

Although it's extremely hard to answer this, still staying polite I'll try nevertheless: You are the most anti-social person I had the doubtful pleasure to read on the web. It's a pity that politeness limits to heavy understatements
The biggest service you could deliver to human race would be putting your head in a water-filled bucket and inhale deep as often as you can.

IMO somebody should quote your post to the review section of your amazon d'load.

[QuantumIguana]

Someone should distribute some knowledge to him.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Someone should distribute some knowledge to him.

Hahaha, that will be the day. Unfortunately he cannot afford it.

Seriously, Giggleton. You are the most selfish person I have ever met. No respect for the work, needs, and achievement of anyone else as long as you get what you want now without giving up anything in return.

So go home to The Pirate Bay, and do your thing. You won't find too many who will support you in your quest for justification of such selfish behavior.

Maybe I have a money making idea for you. Publish a collection of your posts from this and other threads. You might call it "Giggleton's famous quotes". A good example would be "The universe is a computer and all knowledge has been uploaded already" (or something like that, you know the stuff you blow out of your nose when you really have no idea how to answer). Now that would be a real contribution to society, people all over the world would get a really good laugh from it.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

This is just where we disagree, I am free to say that you are wrong. An author should not be able to set a price on their work. They are allowed to upload to the network. Knowledge distribution should not depend on the democracy of whether or not this or that group of people think a price is unjust. Knowledge and its effects are specific to individuals.

Libraries are nice but a library that contains all uploaded texts is better. Why do we not yet have access to this library?

Mostly we do. Sometimes we have to pay a little money. Sometimes we have to pay a lot of money.

Kind of like cheeseburgers, you raise the cow and bake the bread and pay less for the finished cheeseburger, but you work harder and wait longer to get it.

You pay for the ingredients or you pay more for the already prepared cheeseburger.

Or perhaps you steal a cheese burger from a kid and pay in shame and degardation.

Maybe you find a cheeseburger on the street or in a dumpster and maybe it doesn't make you sick, but you pay in worrying that it will.

Probably wasting my words here, but to be really content you have to be fair to the rest of the world. If you have to keep spouting the same sad nonsense in order to try and get approval/justification from others you are not happy with yourself.
You cannot condone your actions and keep trying to corrupt others thinking that will justify you.

Helen

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

But we are not really talking about knowledge here. Knowledge is not limited by copyright. If I write a book describing a new invention, even if the invention is under patent, anyone else is free to use that knowledge anyway they want (as long as they don't violate a patent). They can even develop a new presentation of that knowledge and upload it to the internet.

What you are talking about not just the knowledge, we are talking about the work itself. An author might spend years working on a novel, both writing it and editing it; he might have poured every effort into making sure that every word and every comma is just right. Why then should he not be entitled to enjoy some of the fruits of that labor?

Lets remember, without copyright, the author might just decide not to publish in the first place.

--
Bill

I agree that a creator should be compensated if a reader finds their text useful, but I do not agree that readers should be restricted with what they are allowed to read based on economic status, this is the 21st century after all, can we not contemplate a system that allows everyone to read everything while still compensating the creators? Why force ourselves to live in the stone ages of copyright? lol copyright? since when has anyone copied anything?? All we do is download.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Mostly we do. Sometimes we have to pay a little money. Sometimes we have to pay a lot of money.

Helen

Sometimes I think about those who have no money, how are they going to access texts?

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Sometimes I think about those who have no money, how are they going to access texts?

They provide something of worth to humanity, derive compensation from those efforts, and in turn compensate others for their efforts. It's a simple enough concept.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I agree that a creator should be compensated if a reader finds their text useful, but I do not agree that readers should be restricted with what they are allowed to read based on economic status, this is the 21st century after all, can we not contemplate a system that allows everyone to read everything while still compensating the creators?

No we cannot because of the limitation that said compensation does not arise from thin air. You do not get to force other hard-working people to subsidise your desire to lay around reading.

Why force ourselves to live in the stone ages of copyright? lol copyright? since when has anyone copied anything?? All we do is download.

Downloading = copying.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

No we cannot because of the limitation that said compensation does not arise from thin air. You do not get to force other hard-working people to subsidise your desire to lay around reading.



Downloading = copying.

And what is this thing that you think is worthwhile to humanity? IMO everything is worthwhile.

And what if, as has been mentioned previously, someone is unable to work and can not make the trip to any physical library? How are they supposed to obtain their reading materials? Should they be subsidized? Or do we consider their textual needs merely a necessary exception to the copyright regime?

Perhaps downloading does = copying, and perhaps merely viewing the text and storing the pattern of characters in your mind is copying as well. But that is irrelevant. We have the ability to copy and thusly we shall.

[speakingtohe]

We have the ability to copy and thusly we shall.

Usage Note: Thusly was introduced in the 19th century as an alternative to thus in sentences such as Hold it thus or He put it thus. It appears to have first been used by humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thusly

We have the ability to beat up small dogs and children. Should we thusly do that as well?

Helen

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

We have the ability to beat up small dogs and children. Should we thusly do that as well?

Did either of them bite me? Knowing whether the small dog or child bit me, would definitely influence my answer...

Spoiler:

...thusly.

[AndrewH]

And what if, as has been mentioned previously, someone is unable to work and can not make the trip to any physical library? How are they supposed to obtain their reading materials?

In the same manner they obtain their groceries?

Originally Posted by Giggleton

textual needs

We need air, food, water, and shelter. We have no "textual need". Entertainment is a luxury.

Once again, several lifetimes worth of reading is available in the public domain. Even if there were some "textual need", it could be fulfilled via public domain.

Perhaps downloading does = copying

Downloading, as you mean it, is definitely copying. After all, you're not removing the material from the source and then revoking access after you're done with it ala e-libraries.

I'd still like to know why your book on Amazon isn't priced at $0.00. Hypocritical much?