Access to Knowledge: YEA or NAY

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

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

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.

By priceless I meant no price would ever be enough. For example after reading a book I found in a garage I decided to make a rather large life changing decision, how much was that book worth? It is inestimable.

I just want to read whatever I feel like reading at any point in time...

Let the system figure out a way to transfer monies to the creators, although perhaps we should figure out a system that doesn't use monies?

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I just want to read whatever I feel like reading at any point in time...

For many people that is almost a reality. I can stick my name on a list at the library for nearly any book I want. For free. If a book is not in the library's stock I can request that they buy it. I actually have done this, they've bought books and I've been the first on the waiting list.

There are many books that I would love to read but I either cannot get to the library to borrow a physical copy or the e-copy is not available to me. It's a grownup thing to accept that you can't always get something just because you want it OR that if you want to borrow it for free, you might just have to get in line. My children even understand this and they are excited when they are even on a waiting list.

I'm normally the first to complain about the high prices of some books, especially e-books, but I at least agree that authors do need to be paid, and I am willing to accept that if I cannot pay, then I am thankful that libraries exist.

[spindlegirl]

I don't think "access to knowledge" means, "I should be entertained for free anytime I want, when I want, and in the format I want". (as the poll and discussion seems to imply), so therefore I voted no.

We already do have plenty of access to "knowledge". Heck, I don't even have television, yet before I even logged in this morning, some dude on the radio told me that "The Artist" won best picture.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

By priceless I meant no price would ever be enough. For example after reading a book I found in a garage I decided to make a rather large life changing decision, how much was that book worth? It is inestimable.

I just want to read whatever I feel like reading at any point in time...

Go for it, I believe the process works something like this
1) Buy book
2) Read book

Fortunately this also takes care of your next point (with no need to figure out a system that doesn't use money)

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Let the system figure out a way to transfer monies to the creators, although perhaps we should figure out a system that doesn't use monies?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

By priceless I meant no price would ever be enough. For example after reading a book I found in a garage I decided to make a rather large life changing decision, how much was that book worth? It is inestimable.

No price is ever enough? You keep insisting that any price is too much!

Let the system figure out a way to transfer monies to the creators, although perhaps we should figure out a system that doesn't use monies?

We already have such a system, and it is fantastically effective. You look at a book, and you decide if you want the book enough to pay for it. If you're not willing to pay for the book, you must not value it highly.

It beats any alternative. The Book Commissar you propose is an awful idea. Such a committee would support books that the committee liked, not books that readers liked. Writers would bend their writing to what would be approved by the commissar. What books you liked would cease to matter.

[bill_mchale]

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

Ah yes, sophistry.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction (except when the former is attempting to disguise itself as the latter) really doesn't understand the purpose of either!

--
Bill

[ProDigit]

If such a site exists,we call it the internet!
And it does exist.

But if you mean by 'all knowledge',you mean 'ads', then no!

If you mean sites like wikipedia, but more expanded;yes; by all means,let them exist.
But only if they reduce ads to a minimum, or non visible, and can provide content to users according to the USER's preference, not the website's preference.

That also means that if the website becomes a monopoly, it needs to do a good job on keeping everything clean, pleasant for the user, and directed towards the interest of the user, not their own goals or plans; all the while still keeping some form of privacy to be allowed on such a website.

I'm literally thinking about a site which could be the combination of wikipedia/dictionary, facebook, google, and amazon/review site!
A social network combined with an extraordinary search engine, huge database,and items for sale connected with staff/user reviews.
Though I would not know how to tie all of this together in one site.

[QuantumIguana]

If we had a Book Commissar deciding which authors deserve to get compensated, they would select books like "Why I Love the State" and "The Glorious Commissar".

[Giggleton]

Unless of course the Commissar was the combined consciousness of everyone participating in the collective...

One of the best things about the internet is that we no longer have to wait to for information, getting in line so that you may access an ebook? That is fuckin ridiculous isn't it??

And there are many who do believe in a system of perpetual copyright.

Can the network support 10 billion people logged on simultaneously? What if 10 billion people wanted to access the same text at the same time? Should they all have to pay the same price??? What if the US government decides to give away ereaders to children upon entering the first grade? Should we restrict these new readers reading to texts that they are only capable of purchasing?? Why not simply give them access to the entire library and raise their parent's property taxes a bit?

Mass adoption of ereaders combined with easy sharing of texts would lead to the discovery of new literature.

[DiapDealer]

Hello??? McFly...

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

... and raise their parent's property taxes a bit?

Abso-friggin-lutely not. Not one more penny, it is already extremely unacceptable how much we pay in property taxes. No, just no.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Unless of course the Commissar was the combined consciousness of everyone participating in the collective...

I've had a number of times when I've been with a group of people, and no one can agree on where to go for dinner. You wind up with picking a place that no one hates, but that no one loves.

This Commissar would be the same thing. A "collective consciousness" picking out books is a nightmare. It wouldn't pick out life-changing books, it would be picking out forgettable best sellers. Science fiction makes up about 10% of the book market. A collective consciousness wouldn't pick a genre that made about 10% of the market, people who wanted science fiction would be outvoted.

We already have the best system for getting people the books they want. Letting each person buy the kinds of books they want ensures that these books get written. A commissar ensures that someone else tells you what you can read.

One of the best things about the internet is that we no longer have to wait to for information, getting in line so that you may access an ebook? That is fuckin ridiculous isn't it??

The speed of delivery has nothing to do with making all books free.

And there are many who do believe in a system of perpetual copyright.

Yes there. But this is a red herring that you are using. We aren't talking about perpetual copyright. I'm as opposed to perpetual copyright as anyone, but that is another subject.

Can the network support 10 billion people logged on simultaneously? What if 10 billion people wanted to access the same text at the same time? Should they all have to pay the same price??? What if the US government decides to give away ereaders to children upon entering the first grade? Should we restrict these new readers reading to texts that they are only capable of purchasing?? Why not simply give them access to the entire library and raise their parent's property taxes a bit?

The government could give e-readers to all first graders. That's a policy that government could adopt. It would have no bearing whatsoever on whether all books should be given away for free. We've already established that your Commissar idea is fatally flawed.

Mass adoption of ereaders combined with easy sharing of texts would lead to the discovery of new literature.

No, it wouldn't. The new literature WOULD NOT EXIST if you had your way. Tell me this: Why don't you WANT the literature that is already available for free?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

No, it wouldn't. The new literature WOULD NOT EXIST if you had your way. Tell me this: Why don't you WANT the literature that is already available for free?

I do want the literature that is currently uploaded and given away for "free" by its "creator". I also want to be able to access all literature... Should I be limited in my access to literature because I have taken some sort of poverty vow, or I live on a remote hilltop somewhere with nothing but a small hut and an ereader with a decent 3G connection?

Yes, the speed of delivery has nothing to do with making books free, the freedom of books will see to that.

Time is relative to the observer, any copyright could be called perpetual if you only have a certain amount of time. Which we all do...??

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The government could give e-readers to all first graders. That's a policy that government could adopt. It would have no bearing whatsoever on whether all books should be given away for free. We've already established that your Commissar idea is fatally flawed

The government will give out cheap disposable ereaders to students. What are they going to be reading? Government approved educational materials?

The idea of recommendations/Commissar is not fatally flawed but it is not perfect, no recommendation system will ever be, there are simply too many unknowns to the mind.

Logic isn't the be all end all to the universe you know

[speakingtohe]

Can the network support 10 billion people logged on simultaneously? What if 10 billion people wanted to access the same text at the same time? Should they all have to pay the same price??? What if the US government decides to give away ereaders to children upon entering the first grade? Should we restrict these new readers reading to texts that they are only capable of purchasing?? Why not simply give them access to the entire library and raise their parent's property taxes a bit?

This seems wrong on so many levels.
1. It appears that you are trying to cloak your own self interestby saying it is all about the children. If you are truly concerned for children lobby, donate time and money to making sure they have enough to eat and a safe environment.

2 Raising the taxes of the parents to provide ereaders to all children is not going to benefit all children. Many children do not even have electricity freely available to power the readers and if I was a parent with a hungry child or no where to live I would be outraged at the very thought (just me I know)

3 There are AFAIK over a million public domain books and thousands of library books already available that would be new both adults and children alike. It would take quite a few lifetimes to run out of 'new' material. Most areas in my priviledged world have access to best sellers via the libraries. Sure you might have to wait a few weeks, but this will not mess up your life.

4 How do you propose to raise property taxes in 3rd world countries where the need may be the greatest. The majority of those 10 billion you mention probably live in third world countries with no property to be taxed on.

5. At least 3-4 billion of the aforementioned 10 billion are children that you say should all have ereaders. Who will manufacture and distribute several billion ebook readers to them along with the accompanying technology, such as wireless coverage, education to enable them to use the technology and force the respective governments to implement the program? Who will translate all of this 'knowledge' that you speak of into languages spoken by these children?

Just curious
Helen