|
|
|
|
|
by abbub
2158 days ago
|
|
Within 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. |
|
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.