3 ms·

Of course there's development costs to publications. It doesn't follow that we thus must lock publications behind paywalls or clutter them with ads. It's perfe

Of course there's development costs to publications. It doesn't follow that we thus must lock publications behind paywalls or clutter them with ads. It's perfectly consistent to both want the work funded and want it free and easily accessible. When someone says knowledge should be free, it's unreasonable and illogical to assume they are saying that knowledge work shouldn't be funded. The discussion of how to fund work without paywalls or ads is worth having. The straw-man argument about whether we should fund work is not.

unityByFreedom 7y ago
> It's perfectly consistent to both want the work funded and want it free No, it really isn't. It sounds like you're saying you want someone else to pay for it. That's not free. > When someone says knowledge should be free, it's unreasonable and illogical to assume they are saying that knowledge work shouldn't be funded. Funded work is not free.
- MacsHeadroom 7y ago
  You're conflating free as in beer with free as in liberty. "Information should be free" means that it shouldn't be caged away- it means free as in liberty. Funded information can be liberated. Shareware is free. Donationware is free. Crowdfunded creative works are often free. Creation of valuable information is effectively infinitely more expensive than copying valuable information. It's not unreasonable to consider that this distinction alone may be enough to consider restrictions on copying abhorrently immoral.
  - unityByFreedom 7y ago
    > You're conflating free as in beer with free as in liberty. "Information should be free" means that it shouldn't be caged away- it means free as in liberty. Sorry, no. What you're describing is "easily accessible". The comment above wrote "knowledge should be free and easily accessible". > Creation of valuable information is effectively infinitely more expensive than copying valuable information. It's not unreasonable to consider that this distinction alone may be enough to consider restrictions on copying abhorrently immoral. That is an entirely unreasonable and absurd conclusion. Of course it takes more effort to produce valuable information than to copy it. That is the whole point of copyright; it protects creators and encourages people to create their own works. In doing so, creators contribute to higher quality of life for everyone by earning an income in exchange for putting the fruits of their labor down on paper.
    - MacsHeadroom 7y ago
      I don't know what to tell you. You're just plain wrong. Having the freedom to access information and information be8mg easily accessible are two different things. Those are the two things the above commenter was advocating for. Should accessing information be free of cost? Of course, yes, as much as possible it should. That's why we have libraries. Should creating information be free of cost? Of course not, that's just nonsense and the fact that you thought anyone would suggest that is rather telling.
    - matheusmoreira 7y ago
      > That is the whole point of copyright Copyright was created centuries ago when people needed a literal printing press in order to create copies at scale. They had to be a major industry player in order to infringe copyright. We're living in the 21st century: people infringe copyright without even realizing it and all but the worst offenders go unpunished. Whatever the point of copyright was when it was conceived, it no longer applies. It's obviously incompatible with free computing as we know it today. In order for copyright to be enforceable, computers that run unauthorized software must be made illegal. Otherwise, people will always be able to copy whatever data they want and there's little anyone can do about it. Part of the social contract behind copyright is giving the public free access to the works of humanity after the protection expires. It's clear now that the copyright industry has no intention of ever letting these protections ever expire. There's no reason for the public to recognize copyright as legitimate when the copyright holders refuse to keep up their end of the deal.
      - unityByFreedom 7y ago
        Good luck with that argument. Sounds a lot like communism, where everything is free and you don't need to worry about working. Oops, now nobody is working and there is no stuff!
        simion314 7y ago
        >Sounds a lot like communism, where everything is free and you don't need to worry I think you are unaware of how stupid that sounds, maybe go and read what communism is/was or stop commenting when you have no idea and you learn things from Star Trek. FYI people were/are working in communism and things are not free (so 100% comment you had there)

unityByFreedom 7y ago

> It's perfectly consistent to both want the work funded and want it free No, it really isn't. It sounds like you're saying you want someone else to pay for it. That's not free. > When someone says knowledge should be free, it's unreasonable and illogical to assume they are saying that knowledge work shouldn't be funded. Funded work is not free.

MacsHeadroom 7y ago
You're conflating free as in beer with free as in liberty. "Information should be free" means that it shouldn't be caged away- it means free as in liberty. Funded information can be liberated. Shareware is free. Donationware is free. Crowdfunded creative works are often free. Creation of valuable information is effectively infinitely more expensive than copying valuable information. It's not unreasonable to consider that this distinction alone may be enough to consider restrictions on copying abhorrently immoral.
- unityByFreedom 7y ago
  > You're conflating free as in beer with free as in liberty. "Information should be free" means that it shouldn't be caged away- it means free as in liberty. Sorry, no. What you're describing is "easily accessible". The comment above wrote "knowledge should be free and easily accessible". > Creation of valuable information is effectively infinitely more expensive than copying valuable information. It's not unreasonable to consider that this distinction alone may be enough to consider restrictions on copying abhorrently immoral. That is an entirely unreasonable and absurd conclusion. Of course it takes more effort to produce valuable information than to copy it. That is the whole point of copyright; it protects creators and encourages people to create their own works. In doing so, creators contribute to higher quality of life for everyone by earning an income in exchange for putting the fruits of their labor down on paper.
  - MacsHeadroom 7y ago
    I don't know what to tell you. You're just plain wrong. Having the freedom to access information and information be8mg easily accessible are two different things. Those are the two things the above commenter was advocating for. Should accessing information be free of cost? Of course, yes, as much as possible it should. That's why we have libraries. Should creating information be free of cost? Of course not, that's just nonsense and the fact that you thought anyone would suggest that is rather telling.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    > That is the whole point of copyright Copyright was created centuries ago when people needed a literal printing press in order to create copies at scale. They had to be a major industry player in order to infringe copyright. We're living in the 21st century: people infringe copyright without even realizing it and all but the worst offenders go unpunished. Whatever the point of copyright was when it was conceived, it no longer applies. It's obviously incompatible with free computing as we know it today. In order for copyright to be enforceable, computers that run unauthorized software must be made illegal. Otherwise, people will always be able to copy whatever data they want and there's little anyone can do about it. Part of the social contract behind copyright is giving the public free access to the works of humanity after the protection expires. It's clear now that the copyright industry has no intention of ever letting these protections ever expire. There's no reason for the public to recognize copyright as legitimate when the copyright holders refuse to keep up their end of the deal.
    - unityByFreedom 7y ago
      Good luck with that argument. Sounds a lot like communism, where everything is free and you don't need to worry about working. Oops, now nobody is working and there is no stuff!
      - simion314 7y ago
        >Sounds a lot like communism, where everything is free and you don't need to worry I think you are unaware of how stupid that sounds, maybe go and read what communism is/was or stop commenting when you have no idea and you learn things from Star Trek. FYI people were/are working in communism and things are not free (so 100% comment you had there)