Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by 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.

It is quite possible that a cover to a particular book might be more enlightening than the text contained between its pages, how much should I pay the artist for this enlightenment after viewing the cover while perusing the aisles at the bookstore?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Is not all text anecdotal?

Perhaps, but now we are getting into semantics...

I mean should people be thrown in jail or pay fines for violating this copyright? The answer is no, read what you will.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It is quite possible that a cover to a particular book might be more enlightening than the text contained between its pages, how much should I pay the artist for this enlightenment after viewing the cover while perusing the aisles at the bookstore?

If you are saying the author should be paid for looking at the cover in a legal manner in a store, and saying that author should not be paid for reading the whole book, perhaps in your case you are right. Maybe the cover is the book for you.

You can also get all of the covers you want from Amazon etc. Go for it, I doubt anyone will take exception. Happy cover collecting

Helen

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

That's all anecdotal.

At a certain point, when enough "anecdotal" evidence is brought forward, it becomes persuasive. Shoot there have been plenty of authors who produced books or stories to put food on the table while they worked on what they believed to be their really important work.

--
Bill

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Perhaps, but now we are getting into semantics...

I mean should people be thrown in jail or pay fines for violating this copyright? The answer is no, read what you will.

And that is all semantics. Perhaps the definitive in semantics.

Perhaps you are an expert in symantics and circular logic and this discussion is all a huge joke on the universe

It is at least amusing at times in a weird nonsensical manner.
Helen

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

And that is all semantics. Perhaps the definitive in semantics.

Perhaps you are an expert in symantics and circular logic and this discussion is all a huge joke on the universe

It is at least amusing at times in a weird nonsensical manner.
Helen

fuck yeah

[Freeshadow]

fnord

[DiapDealer]

I've always been able to see the fnords.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It is quite possible that a cover to a particular book might be more enlightening than the text contained between its pages, how much should I pay the artist for this enlightenment after viewing the cover while perusing the aisles at the bookstore?

You're missing the point of copyright: copyright introduces artificial scarcity in order to increase the value of books. That is why you can lend/borrow books, resell a book, etc.. In that respect, it isn't all that different from the computer that you write on. That computer is protected by a slew of patents, but you can still lend it out, sell it, aren't expected to pay for it each time you use it, etc..

Copyright is good in that respect because it tries to create a balance between the creator's and consumer's rights. Free "knowledge" is not good is not good in that respect because the focus is on the consumer. Pay-per-read is not good in that respect because the focus is on the creator.

Admittedly there are problems with copyright in the digital age because it is too easy to duplicate information, and we do need to tweak copyright because of that. Alas, the solutions that I have heard don't respect the rights of both parties so copyright remains the best option we have.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

You're missing the point of copyright: copyright introduces artificial scarcity in order to increase the value of books. That is why you can lend/borrow books, resell a book, etc.. In that respect, it isn't all that different from the computer that you write on. That computer is protected by a slew of patents, but you can still lend it out, sell it, aren't expected to pay for it each time you use it, etc..

Copyright is good in that respect because it tries to create a balance between the creator's and consumer's rights. Free "knowledge" is not good is not good in that respect because the focus is on the consumer. Pay-per-read is not good in that respect because the focus is on the creator.

Admittedly there are problems with copyright in the digital age because it is too easy to duplicate information, and we do need to tweak copyright because of that. Alas, the solutions that I have heard don't respect the rights of both parties so copyright remains the best option we have.

Is copyright good? I think the jury is still out on that one...

Putting any kind of time limits on copyright just doesn't make sense to me. A book could be written and languish in irrelevancy for decades, then suddenly be reconsidered and brought into the mainstream. Granting copyright to be equal to the life of the creator is one way around that I suppose. But then what of the creators family?

I'm aware that we lack the organization to create a copyright free network, so until we do might as well just go with the perpetual copyright. Of course we have to decide if we will allow full use of art for noncommerical purposes or not.