2 ms·
Should anyone get compensated for creating the knowledge? If you "lend out" unlimited copies for a single copy you own, that compensation gets pretty much limit
by luckylion 6y ago
Should anyone get compensated for creating the knowledge? If you "lend out" unlimited copies for a single copy you own, that compensation gets pretty much limited to a single copy and thew few copies that friends, family and fans buy, doesn't it?
- kiba 6y agoShould anyone get compensated for creating the knowledge? Look, do you want books to sit around uselessly not being read because everybody have to decide if they want to learn based on textbooks costing hundred of dollars? If you believe people should be compensated for creating knowledge, then buy a copy. I certainly do.
- abbub 6y agoWithin reason, sure? The idea that that compensation should exist in perpetuity is nonsense, particularly when the people who most often are the ones getting compensated aren't actually the one's responsible for the 'creation' in the first place. But let's be clear, people very seldom 'create' knowledge, they extend existing knowledge. That's one of the main reasons why the human race has gotten as far as we have. It's something Newton understood very well, and but modern hubris seems to disregard.
- luckylion 6y ago> But let's be clear, people very seldom 'create' knowledge, they extend existing knowledge. That's semantics, you can just as easily frame that as "creating knowledge that will be added to the wealth of human knowledge". The point is that IA's idea about unlimited parallel lending (that is, essentially, a free download portal) is a problem unless there's a different way to compensate the authors & publishers. I don't think they suggested a different way and are trying to make it about "knowledge itself", and not their unilateral abandonment of laws & contracts.