3 ms·
Perhaps you're getting down voted because of who's pocket you want this "access" to come out of? Perhaps because you can't conceive that one inevitable result
by hga 12y ago
Perhaps you're getting down voted because of who's pocket you want this "access" to come out of?
Perhaps because you can't conceive that one inevitable result of this is that whole lot less material with audio is going to be published by US institutions going forward?
Especially if a legal regime has to be set up to vet everything posted in any formal way by a member of these communities? In the case of MIT students, they have better things to do with their time than wade through red tape, which they hate.
And how much valuable material already published will likely be pulled?
- jamesbrownuhh 12y agoMy single and only point is that access is good. I'm not talking about costs, because it doesn't NEED to cost ANY money - and even when it does, the below-sweatshop rate card of $1/minute is hardly going to break the bank. I'm saying that ultimately if you put things online for free, your motivation is probably that you want people to see them. Adding captions substantially increases the number of people who can, and will. Under NO circumstances should anything be pulled or not published at all purely because it isn't captioned. Captions are good but obviously if they're not there, they're not there. I don't see why I'm being systematically downvoted for saying that. It's not controversial, surely.
- Crito 12y ago> "I'm saying that ultimately if you put things online for free, your motivation is probably that you want people to see them." Consider how many people can't even be arsed to write a README for projects that they throw up on github.
- loco5niner 12y ago> I'm not talking about costs, because it doesn't NEED to cost ANY money Stopped reading right there.