Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The Case for (or against) Open-Access Journalism (Paywalls Part II)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zippy2006" data-source="post: 77646736" data-attributes="member: 342410"><p>First note that it is possible to buy the rights to something, before or after it is created. For example, a rich benefactor might commission a piece of art that they will then own. Now there is an important sense in which things that are funded by taxes are owned by taxpayers, and yet in a representative government it is the representatives of the people who control such things. Those representatives effectively get to decide these questions of access, and they do so based on a number of factors.</p><p></p><p>The difficulty with commissioned science is that it presents a conflict of interest. Take for example the popular conception of the Galileo affair (which conception is in fact largely mythical). In that popular conception the commissioning body (and simultaneously, the governing body) censored work that was not to its liking. This sort of thing has never stopped, and is constantly at play today. Whenever a government or political party or university funds research there is almost always a conflict of interest at play, and the researchers are beholden to the desires of their benefactors.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, that's great. Is this a card from a public library or from a college/university?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think their merits and demerits are similar to the "secular" arguments. The difficulty with using a Bible to address modern questions is that what gets presented is an argument and a Biblical interpretation. The arguments are self-supporting, and are neither secular nor religious. The interpretations in this case seem strained, because the Bible was not really concerned with this issue.</p><p></p><p>I think the Bible does testify to intellectual virtue, and what I find is that content creators desire to foster open access. They do so by sharing some articles on things like Academia.edu, by negotiating rights with publishers, by contributing to proprietary and non-proprietary efforts, by giving interviews or doing video introductions to topics, etc. I think it is good for content creators to do this, and it also helps them advertise their work.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Take care. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/wave.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wave:" title="wave :wave:" data-shortname=":wave:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zippy2006, post: 77646736, member: 342410"] First note that it is possible to buy the rights to something, before or after it is created. For example, a rich benefactor might commission a piece of art that they will then own. Now there is an important sense in which things that are funded by taxes are owned by taxpayers, and yet in a representative government it is the representatives of the people who control such things. Those representatives effectively get to decide these questions of access, and they do so based on a number of factors. The difficulty with commissioned science is that it presents a conflict of interest. Take for example the popular conception of the Galileo affair (which conception is in fact largely mythical). In that popular conception the commissioning body (and simultaneously, the governing body) censored work that was not to its liking. This sort of thing has never stopped, and is constantly at play today. Whenever a government or political party or university funds research there is almost always a conflict of interest at play, and the researchers are beholden to the desires of their benefactors. Yes, that's great. Is this a card from a public library or from a college/university? I think their merits and demerits are similar to the "secular" arguments. The difficulty with using a Bible to address modern questions is that what gets presented is an argument and a Biblical interpretation. The arguments are self-supporting, and are neither secular nor religious. The interpretations in this case seem strained, because the Bible was not really concerned with this issue. I think the Bible does testify to intellectual virtue, and what I find is that content creators desire to foster open access. They do so by sharing some articles on things like Academia.edu, by negotiating rights with publishers, by contributing to proprietary and non-proprietary efforts, by giving interviews or doing video introductions to topics, etc. I think it is good for content creators to do this, and it also helps them advertise their work. Take care. :wave: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The Case for (or against) Open-Access Journalism (Paywalls Part II)
Top
Bottom