COPYRIG0

homer at lightlink.com homer at lightlink.com
Sun Jan 6 03:06:04 EST 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Ralph Hilton (ralph at hilton.org) wrote:
>I can't agree. There are times when people spend a lot of their time
>creating something useful to others. Surely they deserve an exchange. I

     Deserve?  Deserve is a sarcasm.

     The world is a free market, people don't deserve anything, they get
what they can take, and they get what they can negotiate for.  Once you
have negotiated a duty/right pair, and you deliver, then you deserve
your return etc.
 
>     spent a long time writing the software for the C-meter and
>anyone who wants it pays for it.  Is that fair or should people be
>allowed to rip it off for free?

     Fair?  You are free to keep your work to yourself.  It is admitedly
problematic to any creator when they create something easily duplicated
by another and given away by them for free.  Anything even resembling
information these days comes under this heading as the world is moving
towards instantaneous duplication and transmission of information
approaching 'for free'.

     This is why I have said that information owners are already extinct
but don't know it.

     People however do not 'deserve' a living just because they breath,
and people do not 'deserve' to have their work 'protected' just because
they created it.  In fact people don't 'deserve' anything unless they
have negotiated for it with others.

     People have no in born or God given duties or rights to anything
and those that preach we do should be nailed to a cross quickly for THEY
will be the ones to bring on the super controlled police state, that
will nail *EVERYONE* to a cross and charge you for the bill.

     Basically copyright is a control effort, quite natural in the face
of the artist wishing to control the ownership and distribution of their
work.  Well they can negotiate for those rights, and probably they can
even talk others into allowing a certain amount of police force to be
created in order to provide that enforcement.  But it is none the less a
control operation specifically designed to NOT allow anyone to
communicate freely with anyone on any subject.

     Now I as an artist may be willing to tolerate some police control
created by others to protect their works, in return for being able to
use that same police control over others to protect my works.
 
     That way your C-meter software is protected, and my "Mathematics
for Lovers" video is protected.

     Notice this is a *NEGOTIATED* thing, *WE* agree with *EACH OTHER*
to suffer each others surveillence, control and punishment.

     Such policement is not a God given right, we all AGREE to be bound
ourselves by rules that protect others if we can see how they protect us
too.  Its a sensitive give and take, all the more so because it involves
limitation on communication and putting *FORCE* into the hands of a
central elite to enforce those rules.

     But Corruption, Temptation and Seduction attacks any central elite
with too much power, so ultimately the people must retain more power
over their government, than the government retains over them.
 
     Only those who are very weak, incompetent and afraid want an
overruling government that can control and monitor and punish everyone.
Eventually the government begins to benefit from this power and the
people merely become its slaves.

     There is something worse than drugs, child pornography and rampant
copyright violations, and that is a police state.

     A police state is where every action, every thought, evey
communication is traceable, moderateable and punishable.

     *THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT PUBLISHERS AND COPYRIGHT HOLDERS WANT*

     If the world were ruled by the artist elite, would the world be a
better place?

     Well the copyright holders wish to have the absolute rule of law,
wish a policeman in every room, wish every communication to the
traceable, moderateable and punishable.

     This is not a free society.

     Everyone wishses that their ownership of things be protected from
those that would take it by force, so we give just enough force to the
government to enforce justice for the rest of us, so we don't have to
enforce justice ourselves and have rampant mob rule.

     Justice is basically being free to engage in fair trade, and not
being forced to engage in a trade we don't wish to trade in.  It is the
freedom to choose who we communicate with (trade with).

     The problem comes in when A wants to communicate with B and C, but
doesn't want B or C to communicate with either D, E, or F.

     The problem is when everyone can take everything from anyone, then
the police state needs to grow to omnipresent infinity in order to
control the theft.  At that point in society it is better to do away
with the police force and admit that enforceable ownership is no longer
feasible for that particular commodity.  If the artists wants to 'own'
his work, he needs to keep it to himself.  Or live on shareware fees
etc.

     Technological solutions to the copyright problem will only lead to
closed proprietary formats for data, built in identification on all
machines, and super monopolistic control entities to manage it all like
Microsoft.  Good for the artist perhaps but *SUICIDE* for the body
politic of freedom.

     Remember always the world is a poltical world first and an artistic
world second.  Our *FREEDOM* of thought, philosophy, religion, belief
etc is always more important than the MARKET.

     When the needs of the artist or any marketeer conflicts with the
needs of the politic, then the artist or other marketeer must *ALWAYS*
lose, anything less is a sin against mankind.

     One can validly ask "But what's the point of having a society if
you can't market?" It's a good question, and best answered by
experienceing what it is like when the market rules and there is no
political freedom left any more.

     CREATION is primary, *EXCHANGE* is secondary.

     The body politic first, the market second.

     The world is full of scam artists trying to reverse that order of
importance.

     The point is that SOME marketing protections demand an absolute
police state, wiping out drugs, guns, child porn, vice of any kind, etc,
and copyright theft is one of them.  Anything where it is easier to
commit the crime than it is to track it and prevent it falls into this
criteria.

     There are quite a number of people who would LOVE to have a total
police state and make everyone accountable for everything, but no one
benefits from this but the criminals who would bubble up into positions
of authority in the police state.

     "When lawmakers outlaw criminals, criminals become lawmakers."

     Only the stupid and evil will ignore that one, and the evil know it
is true and will use it to their benefit.
 
     It is time for artists to grow up and to recognize that a police
state backed copyright law is hideous beyond redemption, that copyright
was invented by *PUBLISHERS* to protect themselves and the King, and to
maintain the politically correct thought of the times, and the artists
that fall for how it benefits them are just too stupid and dangerous to
consider human.

     The world would be a far better place if there were no copyright at
all.

     Yes some blood suckers would have a hard time making a living, but
too bad, life's rough, people don't deserve to live simply by virtue of
being alive.

     Just say NO!  to *ANYONE* who tries to negotiate a totally
trackable, moderateable and punishable communication line for all of
society.  There are more important things in life than ending child
porn, protecting artists, or dealing with terrorists.
 
     Only the fearful would disagree.

     Homer

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,  Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jan  6 03:06:03 EST 2013 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/copyrig0.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== 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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFQ6TBrURT1lqxE3HERAhyQAKCUNCVUQtsP5IApNMukwb4CdcTOrwCgok5u
fnbt8SYGJ2ruAePhKcy1jdw=
=G4tM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the HomerWSmith-L mailing list