Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

People who don't pay taxes by choice as opposed to those not obliged to do so, usually end up with fines or in jail.
Is there hope you are going to join the latter?
I start actually admiring all fellow MRers here still trying to get some common sense in your skull. I gave up. Why bother? There are so much more fruitful things one could do... like staring at the wall.

What if that wall was able to display any text that you wished?

[QuantumIguana]

What about those who choose not to or simply don't pay taxes? Should they still be allowed access to knowledge? The answer is yes.

Why? Everyone else has been able to provide some basis for their claims, you however, have only been able to provide wild and unsupported claims. And we've already established this has nothing to do with "access to knowledge". It is simply deceitful that you keep using that phrase when all you mean are free books. Knowledge may be freely distributed, the books in which is is contained may not be. There is plenty of access to books, there is a vast amount of public domain books, there are books the authors choose to give away for free, there are free books from the library, and there are books that you can buy.

The number of people that believe in something has no bearing on whether or not that something is true or good or useful.

Only logic is capable of doing that. I wonder if you've been eating these books, rather than reading them.

What if that wall was able to display any text that you wished?

It makes no difference whatsoever. Making it easier to copy makes the importance of copyright more important, not less.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

I start actually admiring all fellow MRers here still trying to get some common sense in your skull.

I recognize there is no chance of any knowledge entering his skull. But the more he posts, the more he undermines his own position. I could make the case against copyright far better than he could, if I wanted to.

[bill_mchale]

[QUOTE=Giggleton;2014256]What about those who choose not to or simply don't pay taxes? Should they still be allowed access to knowledge? The answer is yes.
[quote]

People don't normally have a choice. Of course, you seem to be arguing for totally over turning the current system.

That being said, as far as I am concerned, if someone is unwilling to pay into a system (not unable to, I mean unwilling) then they should not be allowed to benefit to it, including access to knowledge if that is paid for by this system.

The number of people that believe in something has no bearing on whether or not that something is true or good or useful. Or does it?

Well, things are true on their own merits, irrespective of what people believe. As for whether something is good or useful, that is another question (Particularly useful).

--
Bill

[QuantumIguana]

Maybe he should read "The Little Red Hen".

[Giggleton]

[QUOTE=bill_mchale;2015032]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

People don't normally have a choice. Of course, you seem to be arguing for totally over turning the current system.

That being said, as far as I am concerned, if someone is unwilling to pay into a system (not unable to, I mean unwilling) then they should not be allowed to benefit to it, including access to knowledge if that is paid for by this system.

So unless we create a global access tax system, those who do not pay taxes in the arts country of origin will have to compensate the creators directly? Or should we simply allow everyone to access everything and let the chips fall where they may?

There is no need to argue for or against copyright when copyright itself is useless.

[bill_mchale]

[QUOTE=Giggleton;2015170]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

So unless we create a global access tax system, those who do not pay taxes in the arts country of origin will have to compensate the creators directly? Or should we simply allow everyone to access everything and let the chips fall where they may?

There is no need to argue for or against copyright when copyright itself is useless.

Obviously, such a system only works in nations that have adopted it. I.e., if Eastern Slobovia adopts it, then only Eastern Slobovians should be able to access it. And it is up to Eastern Slobovia to compensate the artists. If American then adopts it... well it is up to America to compensate the artists who are accessed by Americans.


--
Bill

[QuantumIguana]

There is no need to argue for or against copyright when copyright itself is useless.

It had been demonstrated quite clearly that copyright is a very effective means of encouraging creation. Those books that you want to read wouldn't be there if it wasn't for copyright. Authors have to eat, they need clothes to wear, they need somewhere to live. If they can't make a living selling their books, they have to make a living some other way. Even if they were to continue writing as a hobby, they would have much less time available for writing. With less time available for writing, they will write less books. Therefore, eliminating copyright means less books, particularly from those authors most in demand, as these are the most likely to be able to dedicate themselves to writing full time.

And the book commissar idea is absolute nonsense. You could have some dictator choosing what books get approved, but dictators always make very bad choices in such matters, and choose what is in the dictator's interest, not in the readers' interests.

[Giggleton]

[QUOTE=bill_mchale;2015189]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Obviously, such a system only works in nations that have adopted it. I.e., if Eastern Slobovia adopts it, then only Eastern Slobovians should be able to access it. And it is up to Eastern Slobovia to compensate the artists. If American then adopts it... well it is up to America to compensate the artists who are accessed by Americans.


--
Bill

Isn't that a bit limiting though? What if someone in The United States wants to access something created in India?

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It had been demonstrated quite clearly that copyright is a very effective means of encouraging creation.

No it hasn't.

[speakingtohe]

Then again I am starting to suspect that the OP (giggleton) doesn't actually read books, just looks at the cover and hopes that the knowledge that may or may not be contained within will magically infiltrate his brain. How else could he 'read' thousands of books a year and still remain uneducated.

Of course he may be Eliza?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

[Freeshadow]

Maybe we are mislead by a typo: Judging by the content of his postings I start to suspect he didn't mean "reading" but reddening. The poor boy has only one red crayon for all his coloring books - and this thread is just a disguised cry for help. A red herring so to say.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

Maybe we are mislead by a typo: Judging by the content of his postings I start to suspect he didn't mean "reading" but reddening. The poor boy has only one red crayon for all his coloring books - and this thread is just a disguised cry for help. A red herring so to say.

But did he stay in the lines? Or maybe meant to type eating, and instead typed reading.

[bill_mchale]

[QUOTE=Giggleton;2015199]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Isn't that a bit limiting though? What if someone in The United States wants to access something created in India?

The author of said Indian work is perfectly free to publish said work in the United States. The key is that where-ever the work is published, it is published (locally) under the rules of the country where it is being published. In countries with traditional copyright, that means it must be sold. In countries with a tax based system, then the author will receive renumeration from the state based on how many people read it (or whatever system is developed).

No it hasn't.

Frankly, your insistance, despite copious evidence to the contrary (i.e., the testimony of dozens if not hundreds of authors) that copyright has allowed them to make a living out of writing, and therefore has allowed them to write far more than they might have otherwise, essentially undermines any credibility you might have once had.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Frankly, your insistance, despite copious evidence to the contrary (i.e., the testimony of dozens if not hundreds of authors) that copyright has allowed them to make a living out of writing, and therefore has allowed them to write far more than they might have otherwise, essentially undermines any credibility you might have once had.

That's all anecdotal.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

That's all anecdotal.

Is not all text anecdotal?