Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If you read a life altering text, do you not want to share that text with as many people as possible so that they might have the same experience as you? And do you not think that any block to this kind of sharing is severely detrimental to the advancement of our species culture...

You are free to share that text, even within the confines of copyright law. You are free to summarize it or share excerpts of it. If it is on some sort of media (eg. paper, CD-ROM) you can give another person your legally acquired copy. If it is on a publicly accessible website, you can share the URL. What you cannot do is create near verbatim copies of the text.

And, quite frankly, I don't see what your obsession with money is. Copyright law is not about money. Copyright law is about controlling the supply. It is true that you can generate revenue by controlling the supply, but you can just as easily use copyright to restrict access to material (say a private diary).

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

You are free to share that text, even within the confines of copyright law. You are free to summarize it or share excerpts of it. If it is on some sort of media (eg. paper, CD-ROM) you can give another person your legally acquired copy. If it is on a publicly accessible website, you can share the URL. What you cannot do is create near verbatim copies of the text.

And, quite frankly, I don't see what your obsession with money is. Copyright law is not about money. Copyright law is about controlling the supply. It is true that you can generate revenue by controlling the supply, but you can just as easily use copyright to restrict access to material (say a private diary).

Giggleton's obsession with money is because he would rather take something for free than put some effort into making some money. The old "trying to get something for nothing" scam.

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by elcreative

: coffeebreak:
Repeat as needed until either unconscious or the troll is

The thread is very similar to the "Do you books?" thread.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

This argument is not very convincing regarding fiction.

I have found that my life/wordlview has been significantly changed by a number of fictional books that I have read. One might argue that the difference between fiction and nonfiction is very very slim as well. In fact it is fun to argue that

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Yes, it is easier to copy and transmit data. That in no way implies that we should have every book for free. That is like saying that we should have free airplane tickets, because travel has become so much cheaper and faster.

WHAT money? If text aren't sold, where does the money come from?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Giggleton's obsession with money is because he would rather take something for free than put some effort into making some money. The old "trying to get something for nothing" scam.

I wouldn't say travel has become cheaper, but if we do figure out teleportation ala startrek, with the energy required obtained from the sun, do you think it would be right to charge people for their transportation needs? Taking this thinking backwards to the present day, do you think it is right to charge the individual for a ride on a public transportation system, (energy required for everything is supplied by the sun after all) Wouldn't it make more sense to charge the public for the system and allow everyone to ride as much as they wish to, funds for the system given by raising the tax rate for the transportation system??

I also would not say I have an obsession with money, I might have an obsession with thinking about ways that the our society could work without money...

But why do you feel that the purpose of writing books is to make money? Isn't the purpose of writing to let others share in the thoughts that you have had?? Any block to this end is WRONG. If you are writing books to put food on the table, why don't you just go outside and plant some carrots instead?

You have to believe that our culture will not let the most important (important being a subjective and flexible view) artists languish in hovels with nothing to eat. By not allowing creators to set prices of content on the network, the culture as a whole will be able to more adequately determine which artists should be compensated, this compensation would of course be in the hopes of a future art of the same caliber.

Money could be taken from an art fund, supported through taxes. Perhaps a bit of the defense budget could be moved toward this fund, and perhaps a few of those working in the defense department could then become artists, but that might just be wishful thinking...

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I wouldn't say travel has become cheaper, but if we do figure out teleportation ala startrek, with the energy required obtained from the sun, do you think it would be right to charge people for their transportation needs? Taking this thinking backwards to the present day, do you think it is right to charge the individual for a ride on a public transportation system, (energy required for everything is supplied by the sun after all) Wouldn't it make more sense to charge the public for the system and allow everyone to ride as much as they wish to, funds for the system given by raising the tax rate for the transportation system??

Yes I think it would be right to charge people for that, they have to employ people to work there, solar panels aren't cheap either, and nothing maintains itself.

And I don't think the government should run it if that did happen. I'm sure people would rather pay directly for the product/service than have the tax rate go up.

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I have found that my life/wordlview has been significantly changed by a number of fictional books that I have read. One might argue that the difference between fiction and nonfiction is very very slim as well. In fact it is fun to argue that





I wouldn't say travel has become cheaper, but if we do figure out teleportation ala startrek, with the energy required obtained from the sun, do you think it would be right to charge people for their transportation needs?

But that's so far into the future that it probably won't happen in our lifetimes if ever.

[DiapDealer]

If a website hosts all knowledge and gives access to everyone, but donates any profit received through the site to relevant charities (educational facilities etc...) Should the site be allowed to exist?

If my aunt had testicles should she be my uncle?

[Freeshadow]

since you asked about KNOWLEDGE
I d rather vote No I'm damn happy about the fact that some people DON'T know how to brew poisons or explosives

[wannabee]

When money is done away with, then Giggleton's Star Treck analogy might work. However, my Internet connection, water and other utility rates mean that for now, I need to charge for my time. Bugger me. . . . My home loan interest rates just went up.

Giggleton . . . . How do we buy food in your world? Or is it free?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by The Terminator

Yes I think it would be right to charge people for that, they have to employ people to work there, solar panels aren't cheap either, and nothing maintains itself.

And I don't think the government should run it if that did happen. I'm sure people would rather pay directly for the product/service than have the tax rate go up.

The thing about public transportation and the public domain is that the more the public uses them, the more their value increases. It is easy to see the detrimental effects of large portions of society not using public transportation systems, but the effects of society not using the public domain, or even not being allowed to are harder to see as mentioned previously.

Originally Posted by wannabee

When money is done away with, then Giggleton's Star Treck analogy might work. However, my Internet connection, water and other utility rates mean that for now, I need to charge for my time. Bugger me. . . . My home loan interest rates just went up.

Giggleton . . . . How do we buy food in your world? Or is it free?

Money definitely seems to make food distribution simpler, but is our food distribution system sustainable???

[QuantumIguana]

I wouldn't say travel has become cheaper

Why not? It has. A hundred years ago, a journey of just a few miles was often a pretty major event. Where I grew up used to have two county fairs, because the county was 90 miles wide. The second fair closed several years ago, although it had become an anachronism long before. The journey that was considered such a long trip a century ago became insignificant.

Taking this thinking backwards to the present day, do you think it is right to charge the individual for a ride on a public transportation system, (energy required for everything is supplied by the sun after all) Wouldn't it make more sense to charge the public for the system and allow everyone to ride as much as they wish to, funds for the system given by raising the tax rate for the transportation system??

Transit systems cost money, it has to be paid for somehow. You could have a system where it was paid for by taxes rather than by fares. But transit is pretty fungible; one bus ride is pretty much like any other. Books are not. Some books, many people will be willing to pay for, other books, few people will pay for.

But why do you feel that the purpose of writing books is to make money? Isn't the purpose of writing to let others share in the thoughts that you have had?? Any block to this end is WRONG. If you are writing books to put food on the table, why don't you just go outside and plant some carrots instead?

And then when would they write? People have to make a living. You would have writers only writing when they had some spare time. If you want authors to produce good books, you want them to be able to dedicate themselves to writing full time. They need not only carrots, but clothes and somewhere to live. My reducing writing to a hobby only done in spare time, you create the very block you say is wrong.

You have to believe that our culture will not let the most important (important being a subjective and flexible view) artists languish in hovels with nothing to eat. By not allowing creators to set prices of content on the network, the culture as a whole will be able to more adequately determine which artists should be compensated, this compensation would of course be in the hopes of a future art of the same caliber.

We already have a fantastically effective method for determining which artists should be compensated. People pick up a book, they look at the price, and they decide whether the book is worth $8.99. If they decide it is, they pay it. If not, they put it down, and consider some other book.

Money could be taken from an art fund, supported through taxes. Perhaps a bit of the defense budget could be moved toward this fund, and perhaps a few of those working in the defense department could then become artists, but that might just be wishful thinking...

That's a great idea... if you hate books. I have no interest in a book commissar deciding what books are worthy. It would result in widespread censorship. Only the approved books would be funded. I will decide for myself who gets compensated.

The system you propose takes compensation out of the hands of readers, and putting in the hands of some bureaucrat. That life-changing book doesn't get written because it doesn't make it through the committee. What is a life-changing book for you might not be life-changing for someone else.

An author can be successful in a niche market. If people as a whole determine who gets compensated, then these niches die. That means readers have less choice. Copyright for a limited time is the goose that laid the golden egg.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The system you propose takes compensation out of the hands of readers, and putting in the hands of some bureaucrat. That life-changing book doesn't get written because it doesn't make it through the committee. What is a life-changing book for you might not be life-changing for someone else.

Copyright for a limited time is the goose that laid the golden egg.

I would price any book that causes me to think about the world in a new and unsuspected way as priceless...

Is the goose so golden?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I would price any book that causes me to think about the world in a new and unsuspected way as priceless...

Would you really? Your entire point is that you price that book at ZERO dollars and ZERO cents.

Is the goose so golden?

If you claim that these books are important, then you claim it is golden.

The world you claim to want already exists. There are many people who offer their book for free. But you don't WANT those books, you want those books that are written by people who are hoping to use those books to put food on the table, clothes on their backs and a roof over their head.

If you had your way, only those who wrote as a hobby would write. People would be too busy working a day job to dedicate themselves to writing.

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Would you really? Your entire point is that you price that book at ZERO dollars and ZERO cents.

+1





.

[HansTWN]

Giggleton is a man on a mission, obsessed with making sure that authors don't get paid. So in love with his money, he never wants to part even with a few bucks.