From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 16:33:12 MST
Nathanael Allison wrote:
>
> Actually I find the hording of information by the super powers and thier
> middle and upperclasses a hundred times more selfish than one person
> stealing copies of books. It ensures thier dominance over other
> countries and other people. Isn't that the definition of a selfish act,
> to put yourself before others. Of course it's not practical to get
> everyone on the same page but it couldn't hurt to make the information
> accessable in some form or another.
>
> What possible disadvantages could there be by allowing non-fiction books
> to be free on the internet. What, you have to have a commitee to
> determine what is non-fiction. If people want to make money they
> shouldn't be trying to reflect objective Truth in a scientific way like
> you say we are trying to do. Trying to make money will create a more
> non-scientific text because people will write to sell, not write the truth.
>
Excuse me but this is quite ridiculous in the current economic
context. Until/unless people do not need to "work for a living"
claims that creating non-fiction or anything else that requires
actual labor, creativity and dedication should be uncompensated
are actually claims that the efforts of some should be ripped
off by you on terms that you arbitrarily decide regardless of
their wishes. It is a claim of the right to steal the time and
efforts of others outright. In other words, it is a claim to
the right to be a parasite on the lives of others.
That said, I believe that most ideas/information would much more
ideally be part of an intellectual commons. However, to get
there we *must* insure that the creators, organizers, inventors,
compilers of this information are compensated reasonably.
Personally I believe it is possible that we may someday get to a
more or less "cashless" non-competitive (abundance) for most
things kind of economy. But we are not there yet. Claims in
the meantime that the purveyors of certain types of benefits
should simply starve or do it as an avocation and especially
that you should force them to or act as if what is not so is so
are morally bankrupt.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST