5 ms·

Information freedom radicalism is not in any way mutually exclusive with compensating creators. Grants, shareware, donationware, donation subscriptions (like p

Information freedom radicalism is not in any way mutually exclusive with compensating creators. Grants, shareware, donationware, donation subscriptions (like patreon), crowdfunding, and the list goes on and on- of all the ways information creation is compensated prior to the information being given away for free. Copying information takes virtually no work. It's not unreasonable to hold that the concept of "intillectual property" is morally bankrupt. Nobody here suggested creators shouldn't be compensated.

unityByFreedom 7y ago
> Nobody here suggested creators shouldn't be compensated. Sure they did, they said knowledge should be free. If it is funded, someone's got to pay for it, and that is by definition not free. If it is the government who funds it, you're paying for it through tax dollars. And, you're not paying a competitive rate, which means low quality information is coming out. edit: I'm done with this comment chain of people claiming free doesn't mean $0. It clearly did in the original comment to which I replied, where they said "I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible."
- MacsHeadroom 7y ago
  You're mixing up free of cost with free as in liberty. Information freedom is about liberating access to information not demonitizing creators. In the context of freedom of information the opposite of free information is not funded information- it's censored, withheld, horded, etc.
  - unityByFreedom 7y ago
    The market withholds food when they tell you to pay first before taking it home. The same is fair for an author. You don't need to fear paywalls. You're capable of learning and creating the same knowledge as any other person.
    - MacsHeadroom 7y ago
      I don't fear paywalls. I create, fund, and advocate for circumvention tools because withholding something of value that is instantly copyable and virtually free to share is morally abhorrent. It's your right to withhold information just as it would be your right to withhold water if you had the only well in town. Likewise it's my right to use information to liberate withheld information just as it would be my right to provide well digging tools to your parched neighbors. The only difference is that I'm thinking of what is best for everyone and you're thinking only of yourself. That's your right; take the low road if it makes you happy.
      - unityByFreedom 7y ago
        > It's your right to withhold information just as it would be your right to withhold water if you had the only well in town Information is like the food in my example, not the "only water supply" in yours. Leibniz and Newton independently developed calculus, for example. > you're thinking only of yourself. That's your right; take the low road if it makes you happy. It's not selfish to be compensated for your work. Authors can choose themselves whether they want to make some of their work freely available, just as a market can give away some food or not.
        saagarjha 7y ago
        > It's not selfish to be compensated for your work. As far as I'm aware, authors get very little of the compensation for the work they're doing. > Authors can choose themselves whether they want to make some of their work freely available, just as a market can give away some food or not. Not if the established procedure for publishing is a journal.
        unityByFreedom 7y ago
        Author compensation depends on the author and their ability to strike a good deal for themselves, just like the rest of us when we apply for jobs, they do it per piece of work. As for journals, I understand the distaste academics have for these. This thread was about whether all published information should be free, not just journals.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
sa46 7y ago
I don't follow your argument: "information creation is compensated prior to the information being given away for free." You can't give something away for free by requiring compensation beforehand.
- rhn_mk1 7y ago
  You can make your information public and free to anyone interested under the condition that you are compensated beforehand by anyone.

unityByFreedom 7y ago

> Nobody here suggested creators shouldn't be compensated. Sure they did, they said knowledge should be free. If it is funded, someone's got to pay for it, and that is by definition not free. If it is the government who funds it, you're paying for it through tax dollars. And, you're not paying a competitive rate, which means low quality information is coming out. edit: I'm done with this comment chain of people claiming free doesn't mean $0. It clearly did in the original comment to which I replied, where they said "I am of the opinion knowledge should be free and easily accessible."

MacsHeadroom 7y ago
You're mixing up free of cost with free as in liberty. Information freedom is about liberating access to information not demonitizing creators. In the context of freedom of information the opposite of free information is not funded information- it's censored, withheld, horded, etc.
- unityByFreedom 7y ago
  The market withholds food when they tell you to pay first before taking it home. The same is fair for an author. You don't need to fear paywalls. You're capable of learning and creating the same knowledge as any other person.
  - MacsHeadroom 7y ago
    I don't fear paywalls. I create, fund, and advocate for circumvention tools because withholding something of value that is instantly copyable and virtually free to share is morally abhorrent. It's your right to withhold information just as it would be your right to withhold water if you had the only well in town. Likewise it's my right to use information to liberate withheld information just as it would be my right to provide well digging tools to your parched neighbors. The only difference is that I'm thinking of what is best for everyone and you're thinking only of yourself. That's your right; take the low road if it makes you happy.
    - unityByFreedom 7y ago
      > It's your right to withhold information just as it would be your right to withhold water if you had the only well in town Information is like the food in my example, not the "only water supply" in yours. Leibniz and Newton independently developed calculus, for example. > you're thinking only of yourself. That's your right; take the low road if it makes you happy. It's not selfish to be compensated for your work. Authors can choose themselves whether they want to make some of their work freely available, just as a market can give away some food or not.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        > It's not selfish to be compensated for your work. As far as I'm aware, authors get very little of the compensation for the work they're doing. > Authors can choose themselves whether they want to make some of their work freely available, just as a market can give away some food or not. Not if the established procedure for publishing is a journal.
        unityByFreedom 7y ago
        Author compensation depends on the author and their ability to strike a good deal for themselves, just like the rest of us when we apply for jobs, they do it per piece of work. As for journals, I understand the distaste academics have for these. This thread was about whether all published information should be free, not just journals.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

sa46 7y ago

I don't follow your argument: "information creation is compensated prior to the information being given away for free." You can't give something away for free by requiring compensation beforehand.

rhn_mk1 7y ago
You can make your information public and free to anyone interested under the condition that you are compensated beforehand by anyone.