NAPSTER Yeah it's a bit rough, but this was written back in the time they were planning to put a cop in every computer and make all OS's secret and proprietary, and render every communication trackable and moderatable. Given those days I understand this things tone. Napster was the greatest thing to hit Earth since fire, not because it made music free, that was never the point, but because it put music THERE, all of it, on a world wide distributed basis. Homer > Are you advocating the abolishment of all copyrights? I really would not > like to see the big corp's control all communication, but I'd hate to see > the baby go out with the dishsoap. I suspect you've done some deep > thinking on this, and I'd appreciate any comment. The world moves. The ice age comes in, and the dinosaurs get wiped out. Sometimes somethings don't survive the changes. They complain bitterly but the world does not care. The world is moving towards instantaneous communication between all beings on all subjects, a totally open group consciousness with no withholds. It is approximated with the internet, but continues with telepathy and other new age abilities. Would copyright holders ban telepathy if people could exchange their music for free by mental communication alone? Yes. There is nothing lower on this planet than a copyright holder. They don't give a damn what happens to everyone else, all they care about is themselves. The point is that people do not have inherent rights to survive just because they exist. If they survive, they survive, if not, then too bad. People survive by negotiating duties and rights with other people. To protect themselves against criminality, they pass laws and give power to police forces to protect their desires (not rights!) for a fair trade with those that wish to fair trade with them. The laws so created delineate the fair chosen duties and rights of the agreeing parties. At some point the power given to the police force becomes too much and the criminals and slave masters take over the police force, then you get a slave society. Criminals *ALWAYS* go where the most concentration of power is. The point where the police and government have more power than the people needs to be watched very carefully. We do not want to create a police state *FOR ANY REASON* no matter how many poor dear stupid artists starve to death in their own stupidity. Maybe if they got a haircut and a real job, their art would improve too. Now the internet throws the balance completely the other way from a police state, it allows people to communicate and publish freely on a scale never before possible and with total safety. The world has needed this breath of fresh air for a very long time. It is the difference between a communication prison and wide and unbounded ways. The lies and one way pablum pushed by the government, and the big companies can no longer take place with out the truth also being told because the little guy can speak with immunity and have the whole planet know the truth the same day. Well if he can speak politically with immunity, he sure as hell can trade mp3's with impunity. Its a small price to pay for political freedom. You know that the only way to stop bad guys from speaking is to stop *EVERYONE* from speaking too. The ONLY way to stop the mp3's is to stop the freedom to speak anonymously and freely. Lot's of people will throw a fit about allowing Earthkind to speak freely, but basically you gotta decide between political freedom, the freedom to think, speak, philsophize and practice religion freely, and the freedom to protect your information goods in market, because they are totally opposed to each other. Some people think little children shouldn't know the truth, and some people think that Earthkind must not have the ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject. Remember the artist may lose some money, but some of that money he doesn't need any more because he can get other's art for free too now, assuming there are no copyrights at all. The only losers in that exchange are the tax people. Think about it. Another hefty portion of the money the big artists will lose won't be available to engage in excess of drugs, wine, women and self destruction, this might actually improve the qaulity of the art, that they put out. Do the beatles need millions while the poor starve, and schools suck etc? How much of your buck for every CD rom goes to support the drug trade in cocaine and heroin to keep the artist high? One is not advocating a socialism or communism here, one is in fact advocating a free market where those that survive do, and those that don't don't. In such a free market, people are free to negotiate whatever slave state they wish to protect their selfish interests. I am merely reminding most decent people that THEY believe that *NOTHING* is worth a slave state, but that some artists and publishers are too stupid, selfish or evil to care. It is quite possible that some technological solution will arise that will allow those that wish to control the trade of their information to do so, while NOT in any way dimishing the anonymous free speech of the internet. That would solve the issue for the copyright holders and keep the police state at less than critical mass. *NOTHING* is more important than keeping the police state at less than critical mass where it takes over and is taken over by criminals. But I am also reminding one and all that copyrights were created by *PUBLISHERS* to indenture the artists to the publisher for the benefit of the publisher and the King of England, not the artist. The artist was sold on the idea by protecting his rights and income. It was an extortion racket written into our constitution. It's the INCOME OF THE PUBLISHER THAT IS PROTECTED. What the publisher fears most is not that others might get the artists work for free, but that some artist might publish on his own without the publisher consent or cut. The artist's *LIFE AFFLUENCE* would have been many times bigger had they evolved around information exchange rather than information ownership. That may sound nuts, but time will tell. We either have a police state where ALL communication is moderated and traceable, or we have the end of copyrights. Will the artists starve? No, but the publishers sure will, and not fast enough. Maybe we will find a solution that will allow free anonymous speech to exist side by side with controlled distribution of information. That would be a good thing. But anyone can make a recording made off his speakers, zip it up into an mp3 and send it to a friend or start Napster 2. Unless of course the technology is withdrawn from society and Earth to do such things. Do you have any idea how much technology is being suppressed by the copyright holders and their publisher legions? That's like forbidding people to know about and own fire because more than one might read the same book by the fire light. It is unconscionable. Earth will die and come to a total standstill under the selfish decisions of copyright holders and their puppet masters. They would destroy EVERYTHING to protect their 'rights'. A dying animal doesn't care about anyone else, it cares about only one thing, itself. In its despair and rage it will take desperate action even if that action wipes out everything else on Earth. The dying animal's last effort to win is by doing crazy random destructive things, sometimes it works, mostly it doesn't. That is what desperation is, the actions no longer make sense towards survival but are being tried anyhow. The internet is the death of publishers because EVERYONE is now a publisher by default. How can you compete with everyone? They will do ANYTHING to survive including enslave everyone to non publisher status again. Artists, well the smart ones will survive, the stupid ones will hold onto their fear and fade away as their own fans will boycott them into oblivion where they belong. The art of selfish people just isn't that good anyhow. Homer ================ http://www.clearing.org ==================== Thu Nov 30 12:00:02 EST 2017 WEB: http://www.clearing.org BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/copyrig2.memo Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body =========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof =============== Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty. Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect. Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty. Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFaIDkTURT1lqxE3HERAgPhAJ9CvdrNbpyX9Mkup3mqs516l4pLgACfeFDr rdTvbBfCcjTxgtxjKPuorGU= =mi86 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Thu Nov 30 14:32:13 EST 2017