Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[HansTWN]

It is kind of funny that people who have access to electronic reading devices and the internet call themselves poor. They haven't seen real poverty.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

In the same manner they obtain their groceries?


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.


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?

+10

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

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

The simple answer to that he is extremely greedy.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

In the same manner they obtain their groceries?

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

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

So you are saying that the textual needs of some need to be subsidized? As groceries are? Where is this line drawn? And why in this age of infinite technological possibility does it even need to be drawn??

We cannot live by bread alone. Meaning yes there is a textual need. Entertainment is subjective. Nonfiction is highly entertaining to me. And it is also very helpful and instructive. What price knowledge?

If Amazon had instituted an inbook donation system to allow my book to be read before purchasing I would have used it. Of course I don't really think that it is my book.

[speakingtohe]

Now I am curious. What book are we talking about here.
Helen

[mrscoach]

Giggles, Andrew was asking YOU if you think they should get texts like they get their groceries, subsidized. You were talking about the poor and their 'textual needs'. Don't try to deflect.

People's needs are based on what they need to survive. If you don't have air, water, or food, you die. Can the same be said for texts? No. As such you cannot put 'textual needs' in the same category. Sometimes people have to prioritize, and text and other forms of entertainment get low priority.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

Giggles, Andrew was asking YOU if you think they should get texts like they get their groceries, subsidized. You were talking about the poor and their 'textual needs'. Don't try to deflect.

People's needs are based on what they need to survive. If you don't have air, water, or food, you die. Can the same be said for texts? No. As such you cannot put 'textual needs' in the same category. Sometimes people have to prioritize, and text and other forms of entertainment get low priority.

No. If we are talking about survival we could all simply strap ourselves into a climate controlled feeding machine that also took over all the lower brain functions, everything except thinking. Thinking is necessary for survival, reading promotes thinking.

Also, what is death? Perhaps it is simply an end to our communication with others. Without texts we die.

Yes I think our textual needs should be subsidized if they need to be. Need is of course subjective. I am not advocating theft. I am advocating reading.

[DiapDealer]

Too funny Giggles. How long can you keep this slow-motion troll going? Kudos for never breaking character, at least. But I bet you couldn't keep a straight face with this kind of silliness in person.

What is the universe?
What is death?
What is is?
What?

I love doobie philosophy.

[AndrewH]

So you are saying that the textual needs of some need to be subsidized?

No, absolutely not. There is no "textual need". I already stated that even if someone were to assume there is a "textual need" (which I do not assume), it could be fulfilled via the multitude of works in the public domain. There's more there than anyone could ever possibly read in their lifetime. If they want access to the latest and greatest however, then they should be willing to pay. It's not a matter of the rich keeping the poor down. It's a matter of you wanting to freeload off society. No matter how you try to rationalize it, or what sort of sophistic, specious, and pseudo-philosophical crap you use to try to justify it; you just don't want to pay for entertainment.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Of course I don't really think that it is my book.

Oh?
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=122093

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Hi!

I chronicled my experiences as a bakery clerk at Safeway, and I think it is an interesting read. If only to better understand what goes on at your local supermarket when you aren't looking. There's also a surprise in the middle!

Bakery Blues

If the free sample intrigues you, I do hope you purchase the story (15K words) but I can send you a copy in epub if you like, just send me a PM.


-Benhamish

[mrscoach]

Andrew, I might be wrong, but I think he meant that the book doesn't belongs to him, it belongs to the universe. Remember, it has always been written, along with everything else that has been published or ever will be published.

I guess he's just the one who wrote his name on the book and collects any royalty check.

So, Gigi, do you donate all your proceeds to charity, such as one that promotes literacy?

[howyoudoin]

If he had any integrity and consistency, he'd make his book available for free and let the reader pay him if he wanted to after reading. It's not rocket science to just add the payment information to the last page of the book.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Too funny Giggles. How long can you keep this slow-motion troll going? Kudos for never breaking character, at least. But I bet you couldn't keep a straight face with this kind of silliness in person.

What is the universe?
What is death?
What is is?
What?

Why so serious? Occasionally This does come up IRL...

Originally Posted by AndrewH

No, absolutely not. There is no "textual need". I already stated that even if someone were to assume there is a "textual need" (which I do not assume), it could be fulfilled via the multitude of works in the public domain. There's more there than anyone could ever possibly read in their lifetime. If they want access to the latest and greatest however, then they should be willing to pay. It's not a matter of the rich keeping the poor down. It's a matter of you wanting to freeload off society. No matter how you try to rationalize it, or what sort of sophistic, specious, and pseudo-philosophical crap you use to try to justify it; you just don't want to pay for entertainment.

FIRSTLY, to speak of pseudo philosophy you must first define philosophy which we haven't.

The public domain is massive to be sure, but at some point, perhaps now, the non-public domain will become larger than the public. But that is beside the point, which is that the largest change can come from the smallest piece of text. So we CANNOT restrict access to anything, priority one.

[Freeshadow]

Just for the educating effect of it I suggest you should restrict your access to air; we shall see then how fast you 'll reprioritize your n°1

Has someone already posted a best-of his trollings into the amazon review section? Should go along with every pricetag > 0

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Why so serious? Occasionally This does come up IRL...

Is mom as patient as we are about it?

[bill_mchale]

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

"If the user finds their text useful...". So essentially everything in your world would be use first and then compensate later? I suppose it could work, except at that point there would be no need for money, since hardly anyone would be paying anything for anything... of course the people doing the work might decide it is easier to free load instead so soon hardly anyone would be paying anything for nothing... Seriously, this is an invitation for intellectual dishonesty, if someone is feeling cheap, they are going to find most novels not very useful... and therefore not worth paying for.

I can think of other ways that authors can be compensated. For one, I think a kind of subscription library (with breaks for those who are too poor to pay the standard fee) might be a good way to go. In fact, I have argued for something like that as probably the only practical way to actually end piracy. That being said, its not the law of the land yet, and likely never will be. And while copyright is the law of the land, and the best thing yet tried, I will defend authors rights to enforce those copyrights by reasonable means. I want them to write more; a lot more.

--
Bill