It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Demand that the Feds Close Down Public Libraries!!!

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Not really.

But what I do demand is a reassessment of the principle that people may enter a public library and have free and virtually unlimited access to books, movies, TV shows, magazines, and music and yet they may not have that same access via the internet.

What's the fundamental difference here?




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
The difference is that they control what is in the library. They control what books you can read, what videos you can watch. A library is not free unfiltered access to information. It is closely monitored and controlled.

They can't (yet) control the content you have access to online. They can't control what you or others contribute to that content online. It is uncensored and unfiltered. That is dangerous to them.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 

libraries are controlled and have cameras
to see who is doing what

the internet is not that controlled and
has no cameras watching you



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   
But it's still way, way more than they want to allow on the internet.

And their financial arguments fail. Why are authors not up in arms about their books being available for free?

And they can and do monitor on the internet.

But I do they might fear the internet for that reason...that it's less control over content. Well tough. On principle it's the same exact thing.

These people want to go on making money forever off a TV show you "paid" to watch once. Or a movie they made hundreds of billions on already. Or music you bought on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD, and online.



[edit on 1-7-2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
As far as I am aware the Libaries do not infringe on any copyright issues.. they purchase books, DVDs, Music CD's etc for the specific purpose of allowing others to use them.

(Tho I know, in the UK at least, some services are chargable, like renting a DVD at a cheaper rate than a rental store)

Anyway, IMHO, the Gov (to a point) can control what information we are allowed to access in a Libary, I doubt you'll find a lot of porn/conspiracies or other such naughties in a Libary,

The Net is (im my opinion) generally more open and less restricted than perhaps the worlds Gov's would like.. I wonder what changes they would make if they where the ones paying for our access..



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Anyone who purchases X may allow others to borrow it. Why does the medium of exchange matter?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Interesting point you make OP.

I certainly agree that root monitoring of the internet should be forbidden, it's pointless and eats away tax dollars.

I believe the old system was better, just get a tap on a person's IP, or monitor a site, but not all data that flows on the web.

The best example that root monitoring is pointless is the recent Russian spies that were arrested, they were using the internet too, and no one noticed.

If I had to communicate in total secrecy I just would use Encrypted messages on the Usenet.

So things like Echelon are pointless, and should indeed be forbidden.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Anyone who purchases X may allow others to borrow it. Why does the medium of exchange matter?


I terms of libaries, they cater to a much larger and wider audience, so need to stock things that a person may read/research only once in their lifetime... So in that regard they also act in the more important role as preservers of information.. be it historical books, documents, plans or old newspapers, it's all preserved, but still they control what we are allowed to view.

Putting a conspiracy head on, the information we receive or can access is still controlled by TPTB, and I have always wondered what books/documents have been put to one side, or kept hidden from our gaze.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
I terms of libaries, they cater to a much larger and wider audience, so need to stock things that a person may read/research only once in their lifetime


Not so in my humble opinion, unless you can go to the bigger libraries in the cities. The whole point of the Internet is that you have access to all the information (and misinformation) that you need from your home/office and if you live in the country as I do, do not need to go to one of those nasty city places full of people, fumes and other horrid stuff.


My local library - 7.5 miles away - has very little.


... So in that regard they also act in the more important role as preservers of information.. be it historical books, documents, plans or old newspapers, it's all preserved, but still they control what we are allowed to view.


And of course many of these places such as University libraries are NOT open to the public. There is similar situation on the internet where you can see an abstract for a learned paper but cannot get access to the full paper unless you pay - normally about $35 per paper. Scandalous!

Overall I think the internet is a better preserve of information however.


I have always wondered what books/documents have been put to one side, or kept hidden from our gaze.


Many!!!



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I completly agree with all your points
but on the whole, the thread was looking at Libary vs internet vs gov funding internet access the same way as they fund libaries... and I guess the point i was making is that although libaries do indeed serve a purpose they are controlled.. so if the Gov provided internet access it would follow a similar controlling model


For preservation of information the internet is better vis written works, but the bigger drawback of the internet is the speed/ease at re-writing history or simply lost in a mountain of miss direction


I was looking for a speech today by my local MP, Norman Baker where he claims the Gov murdered Dr David Kelly, and the only one I can now find (a later speech) he points the finger more at the Iraqis, which is frustrating when that happens.

Personally I get miffed with all the stuff that has been hidden from our gaze,

I've always been peeved at not getting a look at some of the early Anglo-Saxon bible texts, quite a number are NOT glosses of the Vulgate, and yet these non glosses are the ones that are hidden from view.. I would LOVE to know what they contain as I feel they might contain some interesting details of Celtic Christianity.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   
when you get something from the library you are 'borrowing' an original then have to return it.

when you download same thing from internet you are obtaining a copy of an original, or a copy of a copy , and you do not return it.

there is no comparision ...they are completely different mediums



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
The library is an anomoly in modern terms, and if we hadn't invented it before, would likely be totally illegal. I bet they'd love to shut down things like video rental stores too.

Someday, maybe, we'll get some more common sense back.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by minute2midnight
 


I get what you all are saying, but whether it's a subset of information some "they" can "control" or not is not the point. I get it. Libraries are evil. You're allowed to have content "they" say is okay. (And there might be a whole lot more available in some libraries than some of you appear to think, but that again, is not the point.)

Let me try to make the point clearer. Assuming JUST the content available in most public libraries (books, TV shows, movies, music, magazines), why doesn't it bother their industries that libraries can and do share information yet this very same information is not allowed to be shared online?

Why is it okay to lend that same book on the internet. Free is free, after all.

I'm equating walking into a building here to signing on to a website. What's the difference? What difference does the distribution medium make,

I see while typing this that harpsounds gets more of what I'm saying. It is an anomoly. They just haven't thought of it this way yet.

And yes a similar principle goes for video rentals although money is involved there.

So it's okay for a company to buy content and rent if and keep the money both from a physical location or by mail or online.

And it's okay for me as an individual or for a library to buy content and lend it to people for free for individual or education use both from a physical location or by mail but not online?

I can hand a friend the music that's on my music CD but I can't email it or stick it on my FTP site?

The principle is the same. Is it that with the power of the internet they've just gotten that much greedier?

Is it now no longer enough that when a TV show airs and they suck money from "sponsors" and we enable them to do this by watching and then we're never allowed to view it again at our leisure? Umm DVRs. If I forget to DVR it, why can't I borrow it from a friend who did online but can borrow it in hard form?

If I pay for HBO and the right to watch their content. Why should that be only when they choose? Again, I can DVR it and let everyone I know watch it if I don't make a profit. Why doesn't that apply if my DVR captures it online and it's just easier for me to lend it to friends online?

There are some basic discrepancies here that I know i'm having trouble articulating. But I mention them because, again as harpsounds says, they're probably going to think of all this too and come after our libraries and our right to share music or access it in different forms even after we have "bought it" in another form.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by scottscorpion
 

I watch streaming TV shows online. I don't "keep" anything.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I did get what you where say, hence me saying they (the libary) pay for the copyright to allow them to loan those items they purchase, where as on line you are getting that content for free at the detriment of the copyright holder..

In a Libary, not only are the Gov paying for your access to the material, (your comparison to internet access) BUT they also pay the copyright holders to allow you the right to look at their matieral.

Big copyright holders like Sony are bloodsucking monsters out to make as much money as they can for as little layout as they can, so will stamp on anyone trying to get away with not handing cash over to them for the right to look at their material.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 

Okay, but whoever buys content pays "for the copyright" as you put it?

The libraries don't pay any more for a book that you or I do to my knowledge. So yes...it is to the detriment of the owner. Why no big stink there (I know...be careful what you bring to light).

It's not like paying for a software license, if that's what we're attempting to equate it to?

[edit on 1-7-2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
what in the world are you guys talking about? every library i have ever been to has WIFI ? and the only restrictions are porn and torrents .
And at the collage librarys not even that is blocked .
But if the rent a cop sees you surfing porn they will kik you out lol.
as for books on the net its getting there but at this point no one has came up with a solution to the copy rights problem with books.
but even still many books can be reda on line anyway .
even at the library



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
The libraries don't pay any more for a book that you or I do to my knowledge.


Nope. We dont. Often we pay less.

We pay the same as everybody else for DVD's and CD's too.

If we want to show a movie to the public we have to pay a license fee but anyone can check out the DVD's of that movie and all it costs us is the $16 to buy the DVD.

And still jerk-offs steal from us.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
The libraries don't pay any more for a book that you or I do to my knowledge.


Nope. We dont. Often we pay less.

We pay the same as everybody else for DVD's and CD's too.

If we want to show a movie to the public we have to pay a license fee but anyone can check out the DVD's of that movie and all it costs us is the $16 to buy the DVD.

And still jerk-offs steal from us.


I would assume libaries would have a bulk purchase deal, thus would buy items at same/less than retail.

But it is different to holding a digital medium, where one copy can be loaned to multiple users rather than

Got to admit that it is sad that people steal from libaries, I used volunteer in a charity shop... and people steal from them to
the scumbags



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
We all know there is a lot of information on the internet, but how much of the good information on the internet is free?

Libraries, particularly large libraries, have plenty of free information. It is difficult to find many copyright protected works on the internet for free. Many magazines and scholarly journals also are not available over the internet for free. Libraries are a great place to find this information.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join