Used bookstores, harbors of piracy?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Still, I have yet to understand why one day someone will say seek out all knowledge so that you may better understand yourself and the world, and the next day this same someone will ask you for an admission fee.

It's absurd and you know it.

On the contrary, what would make more sense? Just because you seek knowledge doesn't mean it must be free. Why should the author toil so that you get it free. Should the farmer work for nothing just so that you can DO nothing? Should the person who make your clothes work for free? And if so, how is this person going to feed themselves.

If someone has taken the time to discover this knowledge and collate it in a book, why shouldn't you pay for that? Your attitude shows that you value the author's work at ZERO dollars and ZERO cents.

If I suggest that you wear a hat in the cold, would it be absurd that you are charged money for the hat? Not at all, and thus it isn't absurd for you to be charged money for a book.

Plus, we've been over this before: knowledge is freely distributable, the books it is contained in are not. If I learn from a book what the main exports of Sri Lanka are, I can use this information as I see fit. That doesn't mean that the BOOK is freely distributable.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Plus, we've been over this before: knowledge is freely distributable, the books it is contained in are not.

In this era, the container is no longer needed. (Besides the global technological infrastructure) All we do is distribute knowledge. Creators should be compensated, but we need universal access to knowledge. This means more than an interlibrary loan, this means everyone having the ability to distribute everything.

[Fozzybear]

edit: never mind! Don't want to mix that can of worms with a whole cup of crazy.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

In this era, the container is no longer needed. (Besides the global technological infrastructure) All we do is distribute knowledge. Creators should be compensated, but we need universal access to knowledge. This means more than an interlibrary loan, this means everyone having the ability to distribute everything.

And he we are back to your book commissar idea. You propose all books to be free, and the book commissar determines how much the total pool of compensation for authors will be, and which authors get compensated. To determine what books get compensated, you propose that our devices spy upon us to determine what we read and when to report back the book commissar.

A dictator is not going to make wise of just decisions about who should be compensated. Even with your Big Brother reporting in this, the book commissar doesn't know if you liked a book or endured it. Why should a book that took you little time to read be worth less than one that took a long time to read? Perhaps little time was spent reading the former book because the reader enjoyed it and read it quickly, while the latter book was a chore to read.

We already have the most just and accurate system possible: people paying for books they want to read. Who knows better than you what you want to read? We don't need book commissars or gulags.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

And he we are back to your book commissar idea. You propose all books to be free, and the book commissar determines how much the total pool of compensation for authors will be, and which authors get compensated. To determine what books get compensated, you propose that our devices spy upon us to determine what we read and when to report back the book commissar.

A dictator is not going to make wise of just decisions about who should be compensated. Even with your Big Brother reporting in this, the book commissar doesn't know if you liked a book or endured it. Why should a book that took you little time to read be worth less than one that took a long time to read? Perhaps little time was spent reading the former book because the reader enjoyed it and read it quickly, while the latter book was a chore to read.

We already have the most just and accurate system possible: people paying for books they want to read. Who knows better than you what you want to read? We don't need book commissars or gulags.

Bibitty bop.

All books are just about available to to anyone who wishes to access them.

Trying to recreate a system of compensation in the faszhiion of the old guard is a fools errand.

I WANT TO READ EVERTYHING.............................

:bookwo rm:

[Pulpmeister]

Read everything? That's easy--go to the Library of Congress or your national equivalent, and start at A. That'll keep you out of mischief for eternity. Several eternities. Even trying to read the whole of Wikipedia will take that long.

Reading everything is an impossibility. You'll need to learn an awful lot of languages, to begin with, including a lot of dead ones. I wish you luck. Live long and prosper.

Read every book posted on this forum yet?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

Read everything? That's easy--go to the Library of Congress or your national equivalent, and start at A. That'll keep you out of mischief for eternity. Several eternities. Even trying to read the whole of Wikipedia will take that long.

My library equivalent is the internet. Which as we all know is non-geographic. I suppose I should have said I want to read everything that I am interested in.

[Harry_Y]

Nothing unethical about transferring ownership of something I own.

It is foolishness to think that somehow someone should
tell me what I can or cannot do with my property.



The Entitlement mentality is going to be the death of civilization.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Harry_Y

Nothing unethical about transferring ownership of something I own.

It is foolishness to think that somehow someone should
tell me what I can or cannot do with my property.

It is also foolishness to think that property is something that exists outside of the laws.

And of course there are restrictions on what you can do with what is called "your property". For example in certain areas you cannot paint your house in certain colours. And so on.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Harry_Y

Nothing unethical about transferring ownership of something I own.

It is foolishness to think that somehow someone should
tell me what I can or cannot do with my property.

Correct assessment.

Originally Posted by tompe

It is also foolishness to think that property is something that exists outside of the laws.

And of course there are restrictions on what you can do with what is called "your property". For example in certain areas you cannot paint your house in certain colours. And so on.

Incorrect assessment, property can and does exist outside of laws. In your example the issue is someone telling you what you can or can't do with your own house. That is what needs to be disallowed. The value of your neighbors house should NEVER override freedom and property rights.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Correct assessment.



Incorrect assessment, property can and does exist outside of laws. In your example the issue is someone telling you what you can or can't do with your own house. That is what needs to be disallowed. The value of your neighbors house should NEVER override freedom and property rights.

Although I tend to agree with your take on the matter, there are instances in which the rights of the group override an individual's rights. For example, a person with a contagious disease may not be free to travel and expose other people to the infection.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Correct assessment.



Incorrect assessment, property can and does exist outside of laws. In your example the issue is someone telling you what you can or can't do with your own house. That is what needs to be disallowed. The value of your neighbors house should NEVER override freedom and property rights.

Only if you have read to much Ayn Rand.

But what is foolish here is to proclaim one possible theory as the obvoius true or preferred one. Not seeing that there are competing theories about this and that there is no obvious winner if we see it as a philosophical problem is just wrong. In practice the laws were you live define things related to "property".

[Harry_Y]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Although I tend to agree with your take on the matter, there are instances in which the rights of the group override an individual's rights. For example, a person with a contagious disease may not be free to travel and expose other people to the infection.

We are talking Property Rights, Not containment of a disease.


Far to many are willing to give up their rights without a fight.
Many fought and died to ensure those rights, It baffles
me why some are so willing to give them up so easily.

The more we allow others to strip away our Right
the more we willingly walk into slavery to others.

I never want to look into the eyes of my grandchildren knowing that
I stood by and did nothing while their rights got stripped from them.

[QuantumIguana]

People fought and died so that you could paint your house any way you like? Really?

[Harry_Y]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

People fought and died so that you could paint your house any way you like? Really?

I was smart enough to buy a House in a neighbor hood without busy bodies