Eminent Domain For Knowledge - Page 5

Penforhire · 06-04-2011, 11:24 AM

Even given no, um, deadline on our lives, as long as the writing population is at least maintained you will continue to have more than you can read for 'as long as you shall live.'

Now, if you were to say the visions of us uploading ourselves and being able to split off multiple selves who can all read different things, well then all bets are off. But I'd still envision a relatively small split limit based on resources of power or hardware memory.

Giggleton · 06-04-2011, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Even given no, um, deadline on our lives, as long as the writing population is at least maintained you will continue to have more than you can read for 'as long as you shall live.'

Now, if you were to say the visions of us uploading ourselves and being able to split off multiple selves who can all read different things, well then all bets are off. But I'd still envision a relatively small split limit based on resources of power or hardware memory.

Well in that case, the writers would be able to split too, and differentiate from point of split, so it's a wash as they say.

If someone takes the time to copy your work and share it with others, they should not be punished for doing so, they should be rewarded.

khalleron · 06-04-2011, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giggleton

How are you defining appropriation? I define it by copying profusely and sharing with all.

Me, too.

And like I said, if you want it, you can already get it through legitimate sources.

If the government is already willing to pay for copies of works so that citizens can read them freely, what else are you wanting?

To control it yourself, that's all. It's an ego trip - the common good is already taken care of.

khalleron · 06-04-2011, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well in that case, the writers would be able to split too, and differentiate from point of split, so it's a wash as they say.

If someone takes the time to copy your work and share it with others, they should not be punished for doing so, they should be rewarded.

If someone takes the time to harvest your crops and give them away, should they be rewarded?

Giggleton · 06-04-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalleron

Me, too.

And like I said, if you want it, you can already get it through legitimate sources.

If the government is already willing to pay for copies of works so that citizens can read them freely, what else are you wanting?

To control it yourself, that's all. It's an ego trip - the common good is already taken care of.

Exactly, since I can already get it from one source, I should be able to get it from all sources. Whether or not something is legitimate is in the eye of the beholder.

Just because an "official" tells you something is right does not mean that it is.

I would have to agree with you about setting up an "official" repository of all knowledge, paid for with tax dollars and accessible by everyone. Until such a repository is set up, we should be able to create our own "unofficial" repositories without fear of reprisal from anyone.

In fact, a large number of individual knowledge repositories is more inline with the networks original design intent. Making official knowledge repositories (libraries) redundant was/is the networks purpose.

As far as food is concerned, everybody has to eat but beyond that it's all good.

khalleron · 06-04-2011, 07:42 PM

You began this thread with the belief that the government had the right to seize intellectual property to benefit YOU.

Pointing out that the government already has a mechanism that benefits you while at the same time compensating content creators seems to be lost on you.

No, having something available from one source does not mean it should be available from all sources - what kind of logic is that? Because I can buy tomatoes from the grocery does not mean I have the right to steal it from a farm. Nor does the fact that the government has programs to feed the poor mean that YOU have a right to free food.

Giggleton · 06-04-2011, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khalleron

You began this thread with the belief that the government had the right to seize intellectual property to benefit YOU.

Pointing out that the government already has a mechanism that benefits you while at the same time compensating content creators seems to be lost on you.

No, having something available from one source does not mean it should be available from all sources - what kind of logic is that? Because I can buy tomatoes from the grocery does not mean I have the right to steal it from a farm. Nor does the fact that the government has programs to feed the poor mean that YOU have a right to free food.

I'm not interested in logic, but what I am interested in is why you chose to give away 50% of your novel on smashwords as opposed to say 10% or 99%? Or 100% with a donation button.

ficbot · 06-04-2011, 08:55 PM

I agree that, in most cases, copyright law and patent law account for this (although I do agree wholeheartedly that it needs a pruning!) But I can think of cases where a government might want to step in, and where they have done so. For example, the author of Peter Pan willed his copyright to a children's hospital and since the funds from his books have supported that hospital, the government there made a special exception so that this one specific work would not enter into the public domain when it should have. Another example I can think of---although I don't know enough about science to know all the specifics---was the story about the people who worked on the 'hunt for the gene responsible for hereditary breast cancer.' They found it---and then began charging people several hundred dollars if they wanted the test to determine if they had it. And nobody else could run the test without the knowledge they had of the gene. I don't remember if they actually were forced to lower the price of the test and/or give others the information so they could develop their own cheaper tests, but I do think a case like that might be a situation where the greater good outweighs the need of one company to profit.

Giggleton · 06-04-2011, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficbot

I agree that, in most cases, copyright law and patent law account for this (although I do agree wholeheartedly that it needs a pruning!) But I can think of cases where a government might want to step in, and where they have done so.

And I am telling you that I need to be able to copy and share all books.

If you feel that one organization/individual has the right to say whether or not a text belongs in the public domain, then why can't I make this determination as well? The answer is that I can, and so can you.

I really think the problem stems from people being so attached to things, as if you could actually bake an apple pie from scratch or something!

ficbot · 06-04-2011, 11:13 PM

I don't see why you 'need' to be able to copy and share all books. If I write a book, I should be entitled to fair (and exclusive) profit from it, for a span of time. The length of that span of time is debatable (most countries have some sort of 'life of the author plus X years' arrangement, and the length of that X years is perhaps overly long) but certainly for fiction, where no lives will be altered or saved by its copyright status, I see no reason why the author should not have fair protection.

I do think that after this fair protection is up, the work *should* revert to the public domain simply because no work in created in isolation and as the author drew on the work of those who came before him or her, so should others be allowed to draw on their work later, as part of our pool of common human culture. On that, I wholeheartedly agree and do not support perpetual copyright forever. But as I said, I do think a reasonable term (again, open for debate on length) is perfectly fair.

With that said, I was taking your query as a serious one and not simply 'all information wants to be free' and thinking of situations---like the two I mentioned---where a common good really would be served by the government or whomever stepping in and saying wait a minute, you should NOT be able to hold the strings on that one.' A true situation where 'eminent domain' might apply to intellectual property.

carld · 06-05-2011, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giggleton

And I am telling you that I need to be able to copy and share all books.

And I say that you don't have the need nor the right to take other people's work without compensation.

Giggleton · 06-05-2011, 02:42 AM

It would be in the common good for me and everyone else to be able to copy and share all books, whether or not you believe me is up to you? Although you admit to believing your elected officials if they told you it was ok to share a particular book? Why not give all children in children's hospitals ereaders and then give them access to any book they desire?

The profits must be saved???

I will copy and share your book and not charge anyone for the copy, you will still retain your right to profit from selling your book, I would also suggest you insert a donation button into your book that is retained in the book that I copy and share...

Needs and rights are individual things, If you abandon the concept of ownership, all texts become owned by everyone and so copying and sharing texts does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

carld · 06-05-2011, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I will copy and share your book and not charge anyone for the copy

And I will sue you and do my best to have you arrested and thrown in jail for thievery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Needs and rights are individual things

I have the need and the right to see you fined and imprisoned for stealing my book

Giggleton · 06-05-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carld

And I will sue you and do my best to have you arrested and thrown in jail for thievery.

I have the need and the right to see you fined and imprisoned for stealing my book

All I would have "stolen/shared" is the idea you have already presented to the world.

ficbot · 06-05-2011, 02:04 PM

So, one could argue, your house is already 'presented to the world' so I should have it. Or your child is already 'presented to the world' so I should be able to take that too (for the common good, of course). Ridiculous. I should be entitled to fair pay (and exclusivity) for the fair span of the work's copyright. Again, what exactly constitutes a 'fair span' is arguably debatable, the the reason it exists---so that a creator can have the opportunity to profit from their own works before it eventually does enter into the public domain---is a fair one.

06-05-2011, 02:42 AM	#72
Giggleton Banned Posts: 1,687 Karma: 4368191 Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Oregon Device: Kindle3	It would be in the common good for me and everyone else to be able to copy and share all books, whether or not you believe me is up to you? Although you admit to believing your elected officials if they told you it was ok to share a particular book? Why not give all children in children's hospitals ereaders and then give them access to any book they desire? The profits must be saved??? I will copy and share your book and not charge anyone for the copy, you will still retain your right to profit from selling your book, I would also suggest you insert a donation button into your book that is retained in the book that I copy and share... Needs and rights are individual things, If you abandon the concept of ownership, all texts become owned by everyone and so copying and sharing texts does not infringe on anyone else's rights. Last edited by Giggleton; 06-05-2011 at 02:50 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What is Knowledge	spellbanisher	General Discussions	29	03-31-2011 09:36 PM
First Ereader: So many choices, so little knowledge...	huda	Which one should I buy?	16	04-08-2010 04:40 AM
The Sum of All Knowledge	kennyc	News	6	09-30-2009 10:59 PM
Biography Strachey, Lytton: Eminent Victorians, v1, 09Jan08	Strether	Kindle Books	0	01-09-2008 01:42 PM
Biography Strachey, Lytton, Eminent victorians, v1, 11Sep07	Strether	BBeB/LRF Books	0	09-11-2007 11:11 PM

06-04-2011, 11:24 AM	#61
Penforhire Wizard Posts: 2,230 Karma: 7145404 Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern California Device: Kindle Voyage & iPhone 7+	Even given no, um, deadline on our lives, as long as the writing population is at least maintained you will continue to have more than you can read for 'as long as you shall live.' Now, if you were to say the visions of us uploading ourselves and being able to split off multiple selves who can all read different things, well then all bets are off. But I'd still envision a relatively small split limit based on resources of power or hardware memory.

06-04-2011, 07:42 PM	#66
khalleron Kate Posts: 1,700 Karma: 3605799 Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Oregon, United States Device: MeeBook, Kobo Libra Colour	You began this thread with the belief that the government had the right to seize intellectual property to benefit YOU. Pointing out that the government already has a mechanism that benefits you while at the same time compensating content creators seems to be lost on you. No, having something available from one source does not mean it should be available from all sources - what kind of logic is that? Because I can buy tomatoes from the grocery does not mean I have the right to steal it from a farm. Nor does the fact that the government has programs to feed the poor mean that YOU have a right to free food.

06-04-2011, 08:55 PM	#68
ficbot Wizard Posts: 2,409 Karma: 4132096 Join Date: Sep 2008 Device: Kindle Paperwhite/iOS Kindle App	I agree that, in most cases, copyright law and patent law account for this (although I do agree wholeheartedly that it needs a pruning!) But I can think of cases where a government might want to step in, and where they have done so. For example, the author of Peter Pan willed his copyright to a children's hospital and since the funds from his books have supported that hospital, the government there made a special exception so that this one specific work would not enter into the public domain when it should have. Another example I can think of---although I don't know enough about science to know all the specifics---was the story about the people who worked on the 'hunt for the gene responsible for hereditary breast cancer.' They found it---and then began charging people several hundred dollars if they wanted the test to determine if they had it. And nobody else could run the test without the knowledge they had of the gene. I don't remember if they actually were forced to lower the price of the test and/or give others the information so they could develop their own cheaper tests, but I do think a case like that might be a situation where the greater good outweighs the need of one company to profit.

06-04-2011, 11:13 PM	#70
ficbot Wizard Posts: 2,409 Karma: 4132096 Join Date: Sep 2008 Device: Kindle Paperwhite/iOS Kindle App	I don't see why you 'need' to be able to copy and share all books. If I write a book, I should be entitled to fair (and exclusive) profit from it, for a span of time. The length of that span of time is debatable (most countries have some sort of 'life of the author plus X years' arrangement, and the length of that X years is perhaps overly long) but certainly for fiction, where no lives will be altered or saved by its copyright status, I see no reason why the author should not have fair protection. I do think that after this fair protection is up, the work should revert to the public domain simply because no work in created in isolation and as the author drew on the work of those who came before him or her, so should others be allowed to draw on their work later, as part of our pool of common human culture. On that, I wholeheartedly agree and do not support perpetual copyright forever. But as I said, I do think a reasonable term (again, open for debate on length) is perfectly fair. With that said, I was taking your query as a serious one and not simply 'all information wants to be free' and thinking of situations---like the two I mentioned---where a common good really would be served by the government or whomever stepping in and saying wait a minute, you should NOT be able to hold the strings on that one.' A true situation where 'eminent domain' might apply to intellectual property.

06-05-2011, 02:04 PM	#75
ficbot Wizard Posts: 2,409 Karma: 4132096 Join Date: Sep 2008 Device: Kindle Paperwhite/iOS Kindle App	So, one could argue, your house is already 'presented to the world' so I should have it. Or your child is already 'presented to the world' so I should be able to take that too (for the common good, of course). Ridiculous. I should be entitled to fair pay (and exclusivity) for the fair span of the work's copyright. Again, what exactly constitutes a 'fair span' is arguably debatable, the the reason it exists---so that a creator can have the opportunity to profit from their own works before it eventually does enter into the public domain---is a fair one.

Advert

Advert