Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

And if their work is obsolete or redundant? Should they still be compensated?

As the king of redundance who are you to judge. After reading the thousands of books per year you claim to read you should have more compassion and care for other people.

Your illegally acquiring books to educate yourself is clearly not working.

Perhaps if you actually did buy the books you would value the knowledge they may contain.

Helen

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

And if their work is obsolete or redundant? Should they still be compensated?

What I mean is, if we pay taxes for librarians, why not just cut out the middleman so to speak and send the money to the creator?

Except that you're a cheapskate who doesn't want to send money to the creators.

[howyoudoin]

Giggleton, for once you might want to admit that all you want is to download books for free, never pay for them if you could get away with it, and are trying to make inane arguments to make it seem you're not just a cheapskate for doing so. All your 'arguments' have been comprehensively rebutted by the many posters here, and all you do is childishly pretend that isn't so. Have some shame, you're embarrassing yourself. Man up and admit to your true motives.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It does of course take all kinds. Society is not composed solely of those who adhere to every law.

Yes, thank goodness for criminals; if it wasn't for them our Society would fall... oh wait, it wouldn't. I think what you might mean is that in every living system there are inevitably parasites who live off the effort of others and contribute nothing in return.

I for one do not wish to allow the government, elected or otherwise to have any say in what I read or view.

The government doesn't have a say (with some exceptions), what they do have a say in is enforcing the laws that they passed. You are free to read any copyrighted book you want, as long as either 1. Go to the Library, 2. Buy it. 3. Otherwise get permission from the rights holder to read it.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Why bother going to my library, asking a librarian to procure a book for me, which might need to be shipped halfway around the world and back again, when I can just download it?

Because that is what the law requires you to do and more importantly, it is the right thing to do. If you are happy to enjoy the benefits of the law as they apply to you, then you need to obey the laws when they don't benefit you (provided they are not immoral.. but that clearly is not the case here).


--
Bill

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Giggleton, for once you might want to admit that all you want is to download books for free, never pay for them if you could get away with it, and are trying to make inane arguments to make it seem you're not just a cheapskate for doing so. All your 'arguments' have been comprehensively rebutted by the many posters here, and all you do is childishly pretend that isn't so. Have some shame, you're embarrassing yourself. Man up and admit to your true motives.

No I don't think so. All that has been said is that copyright is the way it is so I should just accept it. That's just ridiculous.

My motive is to read whatever I want, a digital archive of all texts, subsidized by tax dollars would be a good thing. Why do you think it is not?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Because that is what the law requires you to do and more importantly, it is the right thing to do. If you are happy to enjoy the benefits of the law as they apply to you, then you need to obey the laws when they don't benefit you (provided they are not immoral.. but that clearly is not the case here).


--
Bill

It is better to just be nice to each other and not worry about things like laws.

[QuantumIguana]

No I don't think so. All that has been said is that copyright is the way it is so I should just accept it. That's just ridiculous.

That is false. There have been a guite a lot of well-supported reasons for copyright. You've either ignored them or couldn't comprehend what you were reading.

My motive is to read whatever I want, a digital archive of all texts, subsidized by tax dollars would be a good thing.

It has been demonstrated quite clearly why your book commissar idea is a terrible idea.

It is better to just be nice to each other and not worry about things like laws.

You're not nice. You spit in the author's face.

[Nahgem]

Giggleton, much like Tara of "My Immortal" fame, I can't tell if you're an amazing troll, or just really, obstinately sincere in your misguidedness. Either way, you've referenced librarian obsolescence as a support for your argument; that is not on, sir.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Yes, compensation to the creator is needed.

But that does not answer my question about why I should waste the librarians time and energy with my book request when I can click a button and have the book delivered in seconds.

One does not follow the other, the librarian is not needed to compensate the creator.

It's not a waste of our time and energy to process an inter-library loan or a hold request because that's what we get paid to do. That's just us doing our bloody jobs, and we'd like to keep doing them, thanks. One of the main points of librarians and libraries is that the system compensates the creator on behalf of people who can't afford to (or don't want to), but who still want/need access to information. And, yeah, apparently we are necessary since you're not going to be doing the compensation.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

My motive is to read whatever I want, a digital archive of all texts, subsidized by tax dollars would be a good thing. Why do you think it is not?

You've just described...wait for it...A LIBRARY. Granted, not everything is available digitally yet, but just give Google time. I don't think a single person in this thread will say that libraries aren't a good thing. You just don't want to avail yourself of them.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

And if their work is obsolete or redundant? Should they still be compensated?

Um, yes. Because we're trained to do the legwork and to get it done legally in ways that compensate the original creator. Also because there are things we can access that you just can't. Because those taxes that subsidize our field help pay for access to those things. Such as digital copies of many scholarly journals, or things that just aren't digitized yet. Believe it or not, not everything is available on the internet. Libraries and librarians are far from obsolete, whatever pop culture might have to say about it.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

What I mean is, if we pay taxes for librarians, why not just cut out the middleman so to speak and send the money to the creator?

1) Because people won't always compensate the creator. As you have made so very obvious.
2) Because those taxes also allow libraries to buy things that the average person cannot afford to access. Textbooks and journal subscriptions that cost thousands of dollars, for example.
3) Because even if all of the library taxes were sent to the various creators to compensate them directly, it wouldn't be enough for everyone who contributed to have their own copy of whatever the material was. In order for everyone to have fair and equal access to the materials that were paid for, people would have to share them. Oh, wait, that's already how libraries work!
4) Because those taxes that people pay, which fund libraries, make it so that people who are too poor to have internet connections or books still gain access to information. If there were no taxes to fund libraries, and thus no libraries, we'd end up back in a society in which only people above a certain income level were able to do research and access information.

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Giggleton, for once you might want to admit that all you want is to download books for free, never pay for them if you could get away with it, and are trying to make inane arguments to make it seem you're not just a cheapskate for doing so.

Seriously, this. If you want to pirate stuff, then pirate stuff; just admit that's what you're doing and move on.

[DiapDealer]

"I am the Dread Pirate Giggles. There will be no copyright. The Network 2.0 is here, and I am here, but soon you will not be here. The Dread Pirate Giggles takes no survivors. All your worst nightmares are about to come true. The Dread Pirate Giggles is here for your IP!"

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

"I am the Dread Pirate Giggles. There will be no copyright. The Network 2.0 is here, and I am here, but soon you will not be here. The Dread Pirate Giggles takes no survivors. All your worst nightmares are about to come true. The Dread Pirate Giggles is here for your IP!"

Yo Ho Ho!

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It is better to just be nice to each other and not worry about things like laws.

And how many authors are going to think you are nice to them when you download their books and read them for free without any attempt to compensate them?

Here is a hint, laws that prohibit an activity are usually passed because that activity is perceived as being damaging to society. Now whether it is or it is not is up for debate, but a lot of people have been convinced that copying of someone else's work without compensation is damaging to society.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

No I don't think so. All that has been said is that copyright is the way it is so I should just accept it. That's just ridiculous.

My motive is to read whatever I want, a digital archive of all texts, subsidized by tax dollars would be a good thing. Why do you think it is not?

Ok, so start arguing for that, and stop arguing that access to knowledge should be free. If people are paying taxes to support it, it is decidedly not free.

--
Bill

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Ok, so start arguing for that, and stop arguing that access to knowledge should be free. If people are paying taxes to support it, it is decidedly not free.

--
Bill

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.

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?

[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.