It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by soficrow
... in practical application, the CREATION of information has a value, and one which must be paid.
If there is no means by which the creation of information can be compensated, the result will be a denigration of the quality of information. Applied practically, if I like a certain type of music, but musicians cannot be fairly compensated for their work, the result will not be economically poor musicians, but poor quality music, as the good musicians find more lucrative things to do.
I am not sure that your "Robin Hood" defence provides a reasonable refutation to this, as the root of the Robin Hood myth is based on a person's needs, rather than a person's merit. ... the poor needed the assets of the rich, though they did not deserve them, but the need outweighed the valuation. Personally, I'm kind of okay with that, though I recognize that, for the reason I specified above, it is not sustainable.
Eventually, those who merit the capital will resent the fact that they're supporting those who want it (or need it) but are incapable of producing it, and will abandon the effort (ala "Atlas Shrugged".)
Now, applying all of this to the current instance, the RIAA and MPAA claim to represent the interests of the aggregate -- all musicians or filmmakers who belong to those groups.
...I don't dispute that a musician or a movie maker, doesn't deserve defence,
Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by soficrow
Well, we're moving kind of far afield here,
I believe in protecting the rights of those who produce, over those who consume,
One cannot expect that musicians, for example, will continue to produce music on a full time basis if they are not to be paid.
Sadly, we are beginning to see a system which exists solely to sustain itself, which is what much of this battle is over.
Getting back to the issue at hand, my complaint is not with protesting these new and proposed laws. It is, rather, with the tactics, which are illegal, ineffectual and serve to demonstrate that, while the protestors have a pretty good grasp of the concept of the value of their own rights, they have little regard for the rights of others. Given fuel to the opposition seems a bad idea, regardless of your purpose for doing so.
Originally posted by soficrow
Your statement reminds of a truly prophetic sci-fi book, Twilight of the Basilisks - written in 1974 by "Jacob Transue" aka Joan Matheson (a policy analyst as I recall).
...The book describes a post-apocalyptic society where people live in self-contained "towers" and never go outdoors; all are categorized as producers OR consumers. There are welfare wards, which we later learn are cryo-crypts to keep bodies prepped for organ donation. ...Turns out the real future and hope of this society lies with the ragtags who chose to live outside the system and created an interdependent, cooperative, productive alternative ...
One cannot expect that musicians, for example, will continue to produce music on a full time basis if they are not to be paid.
You'd be surprised then. Many do. ...Before there were "stars" there were artists.
Sadly, we are beginning to see a system which exists solely to sustain itself, which is what much of this battle is over.
The vaunted "system" is a giant Ponzi scheme - it doesn't even work well enough to sustain itself, much less fulfill any other objective or obligation.
Getting back to the issue at hand, my complaint is not with protesting these new and proposed laws. It is, rather, with the tactics, which are illegal, ineffectual and serve to demonstrate that, while the protestors have a pretty good grasp of the concept of the value of their own rights, they have little regard for the rights of others. Given fuel to the opposition seems a bad idea, regardless of your purpose for doing so.
It was illegal for Jan Val Jean to stand against the monarchy and steal bread to feed his dying child. It was illegal for Robin Hood to stand against the King and his enforcers to give hope to the peasants. It was illegal for Braveheart, Rob Roy, and the First Americans to stand against unjust, inhuman systems and demand their rights.
[ASIDE: I do like the way your mind works and the way you articulate your thoughts. Could I ask you an almost entirely unrelated question? ..."How do Christians reconcile the eugenics component of Libertarian philosophy?" (Given Christ's inclusive teachings.)]
Originally posted by soficrow
Moreover, the Hactivists are just doing to MPAA and RIAA what those agencies did to them using AIPLEX hackers.
Villager: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
Tevye: Very good. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless.
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by adjensen
You seem to think there IS a system through which to address these conflicts.
Originally posted by adjensen
STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP, YOU CHANGE THE CORPORATION.
That is the power that we, as consumers, have over them, the distributors, manufacturers and retailers.
...have failed to convince the majority of the public that you are right, and the corporations are wrong. And that failure is added to by these behaviours which demonstrate a disregard for the law on the part of the dissenters, hardly the way to the hearts and minds (and pocketbooks!) of the unwashed masses that are your only real hope for changing this.
ACS:Law Solicitors, a UK law firm known for sending threatening letters to Internet users suspected of copyright infringement and asking them for money in order to avoid being taken to court.
Anonymous claims to fight for Internet neutrality, freedom of information and other noble causes, but the group doesn't hold back from using controversial or even illegal methods to get its message across.
Originally posted by soficrow
Originally posted by adjensen
STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP, YOU CHANGE THE CORPORATION.
That's what's happening all right.
Originally posted by adjensen
The new business model works, but only if you live up to your side of it -- paying for what you consume.
Originally posted by soficrow
Originally posted by adjensen
The new business model works, but only if you live up to your side of it -- paying for what you consume.
Therein lies the fundamental flaw in your argument - defining life as a process of consumption, and people as nothing but consumers. With no legitimate role except to sanction the existence of the holy corporation by the act of consuming.
SO not true.
Which is the point being made by Assange and Anonymous.
Tis a time for redefinition. And taking back our rights and freedoms to live and to be.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by soficrow
Originally posted by adjensen
The new business model works, but only if you live up to your side of it -- paying for what you consume.
Therein lies the fundamental flaw in your argument - defining life as a process of consumption, and people as nothing but consumers. With no legitimate role except to sanction the existence of the holy corporation by the act of consuming.
SO not true.
Which is the point being made by Assange and Anonymous.
Tis a time for redefinition. And taking back our rights and freedoms to live and to be.
I agree that we are not mere consumers, but when we act as them, we are them.
Denying this is to lose the argument before even entering into it.
You are entitled to nothing in this world, beyond some basic rights and expectations and none of those are the rights to my mind, or my creations.
Why do we rationalize stealing Fish's music, but struggle, as Jean Valjean, with rationalize stealing Joe's Big Macs?
You are entitled to nothing in this world, beyond some basic rights and expectations and none of those are the rights to my mind, or my creations.
3) Content Copyright: By posting on this message board, you relinquish all exclusive copyright privileges to the material you post and you grant The Owners non-exclusive, non-revocable rights to publish your posts in perpetuity in all forms. ...
Originally posted by soficrow
Why do you persist in focusing on entertainment? This issue is NOT about music or film - it is about free access to information - and preventing global corporations from owning our minds along with our DNA.
"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech', not as in 'free beer'".
You are entitled to nothing in this world, beyond some basic rights and expectations and none of those are the rights to my mind, or my creations.
3) Content Copyright: By posting on this message board, you relinquish all exclusive copyright privileges to the material you post and you grant The Owners non-exclusive, non-revocable rights to publish your posts in perpetuity in all forms. ...
"Anonymous" and Pirate Bay are standing up against the global "free trade" corporate takeover of individual rights.
Seems like they're the only ones who've figured out that it's not us against Big Government.
...It's Our Government, us, against Global Corporate Big Government - already enabled and enshrined under international "free trade" legislation.
Originally posted by soficrow
You are entitled to nothing in this world, beyond some basic rights and expectations and none of those are the rights to my mind, or my creations.
True - but if I employed you, I would own the rights to your mind, and your creations. That's the way the laws work now.
3) Content Copyright: By posting on this message board, you relinquish all exclusive copyright privileges to the material you post and you grant The Owners non-exclusive, non-revocable rights to publish your posts in perpetuity in all forms. ...
It's perfectly legitimate to expand scope. I noted the terms I was addressing in my OP, early on equated Assange's work with Annonymous' efforts and credited both with the broader view. You argued that they did not/could not understand the larger civil and political implications of trade law. I disagreed.
...It's Our Government, us, against Global Corporate Big Government - already enabled and enshrined under international "free trade" legislation.
Originally posted by adjensen
...their actions are ineffectual, illegal, and nonsensical. I stand by that. It is ineffectual grandstanding, nothing more.
...It's Our Government, us, against Global Corporate Big Government - already enabled and enshrined under international "free trade" legislation.
You and I are bumpkiss. It's been that way for thousands of years, and whatever righteous indignation you might put forth at this time won't change it.
Originally posted by soficrow
Originally posted by adjensen
...their actions are ineffectual, illegal, and nonsensical. I stand by that. It is ineffectual grandstanding, nothing more.
...It's Our Government, us, against Global Corporate Big Government - already enabled and enshrined under international "free trade" legislation.
You and I are bumpkiss. It's been that way for thousands of years, and whatever righteous indignation you might put forth at this time won't change it.
You and I may be bumpkiss, but
Anonymous is Legion. Not to mention highly skilled.
Should give the power-brokers -and power-broker wannabes- pause, and the motivation to back off, rethink. Allow the creation of a system that leaves room for ordinary people.
Originally posted by adjensen
Should give the power-brokers -and power-broker wannabes- pause, and the motivation to back off, rethink. Allow the creation of a system that leaves room for ordinary people.
Perhaps, though consider that government (who I've yet to sort out if you consider an ally or not,) is in the business of taking away your freedoms, and they rarely give them back.