Launch of The Open Library of Humanities

reply to post by Astyanax

I am not socialist

I am reminded of the dozens of threads on this forum that begin, 'I am not racist, but...'

HANG ON ONE MINUTE, the ONLY reason why i said that is because you called me one,
not to try and excuse my thinking

You propose to remove a means of production from private hands and place it in the hands of the public. That is the very definition of a socialist.

not the means of production, the means of learning, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE

I am a scientist

What is your field? Who are your colleagues?

optical physics
computer science
astro physics

Have you ever published a peer-reviewed paper?

no i refuse to enter my work into a closed system for someone else's profit over societies benefit

I'm not the one calling myself a scientist. Have you?

you are the one calling me socialist, i am an open source advocate, not a socialist

you trot out the well used notion of being a creator of something, and your right to remuneration as a right, when actually this is a privilege, not a right, you own the earnings of your labour, but you should only be given a monopoly on an idea unless it is considered a "useful art"

And you claim you're not socialist! Well, give us another word, then, for the idea that individuals are granted the 'privilege' of earning a livelihood by 'society'.

you have intentionally taken my words out of context to skew my point,
when placed in the correct context of our debate,
under the copy right clause of the constitution, no one has a "right" to make money, unless they are adding to society a "useful art" and even then its not a right but a "privledge"

DO NOT TWIST MY WORDS and please show context,

so tell me oh wise one why do scientists have to agree to ONLY publish with one company?
why do scientists have to pay 2 thousand dollars to get published?
why do scientists have to sign away their rights to publish their own discoveries?
why is it that citations of published works are dropping on works behind pay walls?

I agree that there is a problem. Your proposed solution will only make matters worse.

If scientists wish to publish their findings for the public good, they may do so without recourse to a scientific publisher. They can post things on the internet, self-fund publication of a monograph, or simply burn a few hundred CD-ROMs and send them to colleagues. Why don't they do this? Think about it.

so your saying if the current system does not work publish freely in the open library,


so get off the internet it is clearly a socialistic invention and not to be used by a science hating world building capitalist like you, after all sharing of science is anti capitalistic right?

None of the above. Galileo, the first scientist, was also something of an entrepreneur. Newton was master of the Royal Mint. Science and money have always been close bedfellows. The world's most avowedly capitalist nation is also the world's leading scientific power. Private enterprise has funded some seminal scientific work, from which the whole world—not just the people who paid for it—have greatly benefited.

did einstein charge for E=MC2?
you are disingenuous
or ignorant of how the scientific method has worked well up to the advent of pay walls.
paywalls block the scientific method causing duplication of effort.

too many scientist are complaining about this for it to be a socialist "plot"

wake up

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

the ONLY reason why i said that is because you called me one, not to try and excuse my thinking

What's the difference?

not the means of production, the means of learning

When it comes to intellectual property, what's the difference?

i refuse to enter my work into a closed system for someone else's profit over societies benefit

So you are a 'scientist' who has never published a peer-reviewed paper. Tell us, then, what steps have you taken to ensure that society benefits from your work?

you have intentionally taken my words out of context to skew my point

Put them in any context you like, your words still amount to a proposal for robbing Peter to pay Paul. In other words, socialism.

Did einstein charge for E=MC2?

Considering that he received tenure at Princeton University for work done while he wasn't even in America, I should say he was pretty well compensated for his discoveries.

By the way, Mister Scientist, it's e = mc^2, at least among those of us who are familiar with scientific notation.

it is obvious you have simply come to call me names and disrupt my thread,
you are attacking me and my publishing record rather than address the op,

i owe you no explanation of how i use my knowledge to benefit culture or society as a whole,
members who have been around ATS much longer than you know my contributions.

i think you are confused between the ability to earn and the ability to learn,

the fact that many of the worlds largest universities have open sourced their courses free to the public,
shows your wrong in the short term,
and the fact that many scientists will contribute to this new library will prove you wrong in the long term.

your thinking is out of place in the modern world,
and the fact that your on the internet shows you have no problems using a useful art.

im not here to educate you, that is what the new open library will do

history will prove one of us wrong.

lets agree to disagree until the library is either successful or a failure.

i place my faith in the direction we are headed

xploder

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


So you think institutions of higher learning will actually attempt to keep information off the internet? I am not entirely convinced of this, I went to a liberal arts college, and they are all for freedom of information.

I think it is more likely that colleges and universities will adapt to this, actually. Some are already offering free online courses featuring their best professors. Also, getting an education at a physical location where courses are presented to you in an organized and coherent fashion, there are hands-on labs and you can communicate with experts in the field is more valuable than finding information online already.

How do you think someone who graduated from the University of Pheonix compares to someone who graduated from a real university?

I guess my point is, from my experience with institutions of higher learning, they are extremely more likely to be creative and adapt to the situation than try to shut down access to information.

Even at the community college I took some extra classes at, the professors were excited about how the advancement in technology was going to help with learning.

reply to post by Astyanax


According to Sun Tzu's Art of War, thirst for knowledge is an excellent mechanism of control. This is the way that North Korea is able to keep its population under control, and is probably as effective as sex for motivating men.

Women have been oppressed since the beginning of time by limiting their access to information.

The freedom of information we have now is an important step in freeing human beings from the shackles of their oppressors, as well as a way to keep governments and corporations accountable for their actions. Look at ATS. All of you come here.

Would you rather be limited to the propaganda brought forth to you by a nation or corporation, or be able to research it for yourselves? Which is going to lead to a healthier lifestyle and a better future?

There may be a few barriers to overcome, but it isn't that bad, it might be scary to try something new, but it isn't going to be as bad as what we have now.

reply to post by XPLodER

it is obvious you have simply come to call me names and disrupt my thread, you are attacking me and my publishing record rather than address the op.

I addressed your opening post in my first post. I am not attacking you, I am criticising your position.

the fact that many of the worlds largest universities have open sourced their courses free to the public shows your wrong in the short term, and the fact that many scientists will contribute to this new library will prove you wrong in the long term.

It does nothing of the kind.

You call me confused and ignorant, yet you haven't even grasped the basics of my argument. If you had, you wouldn't be making irrelevant statements like this one.

your thinking is out of place in the modern world, and the fact that your on the internet shows you have no problems using a useful art.

You haven't even begun to understand what I'm saying, have you? Social democracy is fine by me; I agree that educating its citizens is one of the responsibility of the state. What I am saying is that the creators and distributors of knowledge deserve to be compensated for their efforts.

Anyone who produces anything useful or desirable—a chair, a symphony, a scientific paper—should be compensated by those who use or desire it. That is my position, which you may call capitalist or liberal or any other name you choose. Your position is that compensation is a privilege, not a right, and that a thuggish state (or some thug claiming state authority) can help himself to my hard work without paying me. There's a word for that: expropriation. It's what socialists do.

*

reply to post by darkbake

What have I been saying from the beginning? That the problem the OP outlines is a real one. It is his proposed solution I object to.

As for your point: everybody has the right to information in the public domain. Not everybody has the right to privately held information. You don't hand out your bank account details to everyone, do you?

reply to post by Astyanax

You haven't even begun to understand what I'm saying, have you? Social democracy is fine by me; I agree that educating its citizens is one of the responsibility of the state. What I am saying is that the creators and distributors of knowledge deserve to be compensated for their efforts.

but what you ignore is proportionality,
the scientist who does the hard work, who actually does the science is getting short changed in the current pay to play system. now your augment is that they are payed to do the work in their income, some of which could be publicly funded, i would point out that if it is publicly funded it is the property of the people who payed for it.

now that aside, for the scientific method to work papers need to be published, papers that others can cite in their works that progress the accepted science to a new level.

now this has been the accepted scientific method for centuries, i take my predecessors work and advance it.
i then release that work to be reviewed, it is either accepted as proper and correct or discarded.

if accepted it becomes a pillar in our under standing of that aspect of science.
and other scientists dont have re-cover the same ground and go through the same steps before they can extend our understanding.

when a pay wall blocks the ability to extend science we all lose.

the scientist makes no money from the company erecting the pay wall,
the scientist wanting to further the area of science, will have to read thousands of papers,
each one costing money, to find out if his ideas are worth testing by the scientific method.

this helps no one EXCEPT the extortionist erecting the paywall,
who by the way makes ALL the profit

your IP minimalist position puts the individuals ability to earn above the functioning of the scientific method,
and the greater good that science provides as a useful art, for the benefit of society

if you cant see the truth in what i am saying then im afraid to say,
you have no idea of the complexities of this op

xploder

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by Astyanax

 

According to Sun Tzu's Art of War, thirst for knowledge is an excellent mechanism of control. This is the way that North Korea is able to keep its population under control, and is probably as effective as sex for motivating men.

Women have been oppressed since the beginning of time by limiting their access to information.

The freedom of information we have now is an important step in freeing human beings from the shackles of their oppressors, as well as a way to keep governments and corporations accountable for their actions. Look at ATS. All of you come here.

Would you rather be limited to the propaganda brought forth to you by a nation or corporation, or be able to research it for yourselves? Which is going to lead to a healthier lifestyle and a better future?

There may be a few barriers to overcome, but it isn't that bad, it might be scary to try something new, but it isn't going to be as bad as what we have now.

edit on 8-4-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

star for explaining the "bigger picture"
and i agree that knowledge gives people the ability to better themselves on their own terms


xploder

reply to post by Astyanax


Borrowing a book from a friend?

I would like to borrow Microsoft Office from a friend and install it on my computer. Since they have already paid for it, MIcrosoft shouldn't have a problem with it, right? I can then loan it back to a few other people so we can all benefit from that 1 single purchase.

Astyanax, i call shenanigans. I believe you arent trying to debate. Youre throwing short quippy answers on isolated comments. The mainstream media employs that trick. I say troll and therefore, no more to say.


DO NOT FEED TROLLS

reply to post by darkbake


I have no idea if colleges will attempt to keep stuff off the internet or not. i would not be surprised to see some of them lobby in one form or another for protection of what they view as their "intellectual property".


My argument is that once you put something out that I can see and examine myself, I am not infected with the meme that others call "intellectual property".

The very notion that is employed with intellectual property is preposterous. And it doesn't benefit anyone. If i can corner the market because of a novel idea, what impetus do I have to drive further improvements? What I end up seeing is an IPhone that gets rereleased every 12 months with minor changes/improvements that likely should have been present on the very first Iphone to begin with.

And then we end up seeing our courts clogged up with petty lawsuits over stupid "intellectual property" like the "Slide to Unlock" feature that Apple sued Samsung over. Despite the fact that sliding locks have been part of the human knowledgbase since prehistory.

reply to post by Astyanax


If you want information I have, I would have every right to ask for a contract with you before giving it to you.

I would say, however, that if the entire world were not prohibited from using new information that comes to light, we might see less happenings like Planned Obsolescence. Product quality would actually improve.

reply to post by XPLodER

but what you ignore is proportionality...

So you're getting into the facts of the matter at last, are you? Very good. Perhaps that is how you should have begun, rather than with extravagant pronouncements about 'rights' and 'privileges' and 'caging minds'.

No doubt the current system of scientific publication is inefficient and exploitative. There is a potential discussion to be had about reforming it. If you had taken this tack from the outset, the discussion may have been a more useful, though possibly less entertaining one. Instead, you presented it as a moral debate about the ownership of intellectual property, slanted pro consumers and contra producers. As a man sow, so shall he reap.

*

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

If you look up the relevant sections of your local laws regarding copyright, which will be based on the Berne Convention and/or the WIPO treaty, you'll see that borrowing and reading a book is completely legal. Making unauthorised copies of Microsoft Office is not. Perhaps it should be, but that is a debate for another thread.

&

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

The very notion that is employed with intellectual property is preposterous. And it doesn't benefit anyone. If i can corner the market because of a novel idea, what impetus do I have to drive further improvements? What I end up seeing is an IPhone that gets rereleased every 12 months with minor changes/improvements that likely should have been present on the very first Iphone to begin with.

You're barking up the wrong tree again, Texan. Earlier you were talking about trademarks, now you're talking about patents. But in this thread, we're talking about copyright. The basic differences between these three forms of intellectual property are covered here.

Scientific copyright is a very hot potato nowadays. There are many who maintain that it should not exist at all. And if things like OLH can work, perhaps it need not. But for the time being it does, and it is part of a wider regime of copyright laws that allow creative people to enjoy the commercial advantage of their work. I support that regime and will fight tooth and nail against any attempt to turn my work into public property.

Publishing is, and has always been, a dodgy business—ask a writer! It's little enough profit we make, with our royalties of a few measly percentage points per copy—the publisher pockets all the rest. Scientific publishing is even worse, because there's really no money in it for the author at all; however, it is important for both recognition and (as the OP reminds us) participation in the world of science. If a new paradigm can be developed that allows scientists the necessary recognition and participation, I'm all for it. All it would need to do to succeed is have scientists adopt it. If they haven't, well, I repeat the question I asked earlier: why not?

I am against the abuse of patents by their owners. Indeed, I have helped, in a very small way, in the successful international effort to ease patent restrictions on antiretroviral drugs so as to enable their low-cost manufacture in the developing world. But that was a special case, an humanitarian one; the true abuse of patents does not, I believe, occur very often, frivolous lawsuits over mobile phones and other consumer fripperies notwithstanding.

*

reply to post by mactheaxe

Astyanax, i call shenanigans.

As you please. I believe I have dealt fairly with you and everyone else on this thread.

reply to post by Astyanax


You may be talking about Copyright. I am talking about the fallacy of "Intellectual Property", which falls under the legal designations you are parsing.

This is exactly what this world needs.

In permaculture one of the concepts is that everyone knows how to do each others job, they may not have the same degree of expertise and may specialise in a different area, but the knowledge is openly shared, which in turn benefits everyone.

BTW don't pay any attention to the troll tearing apart your paragraphs sentence by sentence. If they had something important to say they would take the whole paragraph into account so that the context isn't removed or obscured.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You may be talking about Copyright. I am talking about the fallacy of "Intellectual Property", which falls under the legal designations you are parsing.

Feel free to wander as you please, but the thread topic concerns copyright. All your arguments so far have applied to patents and trademarks.

reply to post by Eonnn

BTW don't pay any attention to the troll tearing apart your paragraphs sentence by sentence. If they had something important to say they would take the whole paragraph into account so that the context isn't removed or obscured.

You mean like this?

As long as you understand English, the content and relevance of what I have written in this thread is perfectly clear. If it isn't, there is a scroll button, and the thread is only two pages long.

The real trouble is that none of you can come up with a decent argument to refute me with.

At least have the courage to call me a troll to my face.

reply to post by Astyanax


You mentioned the term "intellectual property". it is why i responded to you, not the OP.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Astyanax

 

You mentioned the term "intellectual property". it is why i responded to you, not the OP.

you make a really good point,
the twisted and perverted nature of the concept of "intellectual property" is at the heart of the problem,
the idea of useful arts cannot be useful if the knowledge is held hostage to the wants of a single individual.

if a person (or company) patents something and then shelves the patent so that they may troll for other peoples profit, that is the exact opposite of what the patent and copyright was to intended to do when the clause was added to the constitution. it was designed to protect people who contribute to the health and well-being of society.

in the area of copyright, is someone produces something that is to be considered "useful art", it has to be useful to society as a whole or of sufficient interest to culture to be considered "a cultural work of importance"
the name intellectual property implies that it is personal property, and how can personal property be considered either culturally significant or a useful art if the owner can decide they want an unlimited amount of money from each and every person in society who wants to experience it.

what people have forgotten is that for anything to be useful to society, it must be useful to society.
the people who put the rights to profit from "intellectual property" above culture and society,

are thinking in terms of me, me, me, and not in terms of others, others, others.
they miss the impact that the self centred person has on culture at large by wanting to hold the people hostage to their greed which can never be satisfied.

big picture is that if someone is only interested in profit, they will forsake societies requirements for personal gain and then extort money in ever increasing amounts, using their monopoly to remove others rights to culture for a small gain.

i freely give my designs and ideas to the world, because im not confused about what is really important,
culture is more important than my personal greed, and so is society.

it takes a selfish person to believe that they should be allowed to own culture or useful arts.

the copyright law was not designed to be exploited by people who care little for anyone but themselves,
but that is what it has been perverted into because people believe they are OWED a living for not sharing an idea or work.

this incentivises people to hold knowledge captive,
where as the original intent of copyright was to reward people that contribute to society as a whole.

as spock said

the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few

in a twisted way intellectual property supporters try to have us believe,

the needs of the few out weigh the needs of us all,

its a shame this causes people to place large costs on access to culture for one simple reason,
greed at the expense of a better world

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Your latest post makes your position quite clear. It may be unkind to socialism to dignify your programme by that name; essentially, you just want to help yourself to something that is not yours—common thievery, to call a spade a spade. Fortunately, there are laws and international conventions in place to ensure that you do not succeed. I heartily support those laws and conventions.

By the way, you might want to look up the name Jeremy Bentham, so that you can see where the ideas with which you credit a fictitious television character actually come from—and what they actually mean.