The Sharing Society

[Kooperman]

From the NY Times 9-14-03


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 14, 2003
THE SHARING SOCIETY
Whatever Will Be Will Be Free on the Internet
By STEVE LOHR


THE recording industry's long-running battle against online music piracy has come to resemble one of those whack-a-mole arcade games, where the player hammers one rubber rodent's head with a mallet only to see another pop up nearby. Conk one, and up pops another, and so on.

Three years ago, the music industry sued Napster, the first popular music file-sharing network on the Internet. That sent Napster reeling, but other networks for trading copyrighted music — KaZaA, Grokster, Morpheus and others — sprang up. Last week, in the latest swing of the hammer, the Recording Industry Association of America filed 261 lawsuits against individual file sharers, which will surely make some of their estimated 60 million compatriots think twice — for now. Earth Station Five, a company based in the West Bank, surfaced recently with claims of being at war with the industry association. It promises the latest in anonymous Internet file sharing. Its motto: "Resistance is futile."

Since Gutenberg's printing press, new technologies for creating, copying and distributing information have eroded the power of the people, or industries, in control of various media. In the last century, the pattern held true, for example, when recorded music became popular in the early 1900's, radio in the 1920's and cable television in recent years.

But the heritage and design of the Internet present a particularly disruptive technology. Today's global network had its origins in the research culture of academia with its ethos of freely sharing information. And by design, the Internet turns every user in every living room into a mass distributor of just about anything that can be digitized, including film, photography, the written word and, of course, music. Already, Hollywood is trying to curb the next frontier, film swapping. The inevitable advance of technology will make reading on digital tablets more convenient than reading on paper, so the publishers of books, magazines and newspapers have their worries as well. "Nobody is immune," observed Michael J. Wolf, managing partner in charge of the media practice at McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm.

"The cultural and technical principle embedded in today's Internet is that it is neutral in the sense that the people who use it have the power to determine its use, not corporations or the network operators," said Jonathan Zittrain, a co-director of the Berkman Center for the Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School. "The plan for the Internet was to have no plan."

The Net's free-range design, combined with the global proliferation of personal computing and low-cost communications networks, laid the foundation for the surge of innovation and new uses that became so evident by the late 1990's. The World Wide Web is the overarching example, but others include instant messaging, online gaming and peer-to-peer file sharing. And while companies are free to build proprietary products and services in cyberspace, the basic software and communications technology of the Internet lies in the public domain — open for all to use.

It was inevitable, then, that the Internet would eventually force a radical rethinking of intellectual property rights, and the music industry's current travails represent a particularly dramatic example of the mutating rules — though not the only one. Consider, for example, the rise of so-called open-source software. The poster child of open-source projects is GNU Linux, an operating system whose computer code is distributed freely over the Internet and is maintained and debugged by a loose-knit global community of programmers. Linux has become a genuine challenge to Microsoft because programmers around the world can see and modify the underlying source code — instead of jealously guarding it as a trade secret.

That concept of open-source is inseparable from the Internet, because it provides the vehicle for free exchange and widespread distribution — the same idea that is at the heart of file sharing and one that is spreading well beyond the techies. A group, led by Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School, has established a "creative commons" project for collecting and putting creative works including music, film, photography and literature in the public domain, inspired by the open-source software model.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is posting the content of 500 of its courses online this fall, a project called OpenCourseWare. In Britain, a small group of artists and editors has set up a Web site for Jenny Everywhere, an increasingly popular open-source cartoon. Its only requirement is that any "Jenny" cartoon include its license, which states "others may use this property as they wish. All rights reversed."

What all this means for the future of intellectual property, and some businesses, is as unpredictable as the open-source revolution itself. In the music business, it seems remarkable that only a few believe the technology cannot be held in check.

One of those few is David Bowie. "I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing," Mr. Bowie said in an interview last year. The future of the music industry, he suggests, is that songs are essentially advertisements and artists will have to make a living by performing on tour.

Others fear that, as the futility of technological fixes becomes clearer, the response may be onerous legal restrictions on the Internet and how people use it. "You don't want to break the kneecaps of the Internet to protect one relatively small industry, the recording business," Mr. Lessig, the Stanford professor, said.

William Fisher, a Harvard law professor, offers a solution for the recording industry's Internet challenge, and one that borrows from the past. When radio became popular in the 1920's and 1930's and began broadcasting copyrighted songs, the record companies, singers and bands protested. The answer was to have the radio stations pay the copyright holders and set up a measuring system so the largest payments went for the most popular songs.

In a book to be published next year, Mr. Fisher recommends placing a 15 percent tax on Internet access and a 15 percent tax on devices used for storing and copying music and movies like CD-burners, MP3 players and blank CD's.

The funds raised, he estimates, would be about $2.5 billion in 2004, roughly the projected amount the recording industry and Hollywood would lose to online piracy. The music business and Hollywood would get refunds based on what works were the most popular downloads.

"It's not perfect," Mr. Fisher admitted.

Still, it does represent what is not much in evidence today — some sort of middle ground that would compensate rights holders but also move with the march of technology and consumer behavior instead of merely trying to fight it.

"With music file sharing, you have a cultural norm that is being established by what is technologically possible," said Daniel Weitzner, a director at the World Wide Web Consortium. "That is very hard to resist."

[shawners]

15 percent tax??7.48 a month for me, times 12.
90 dollars. I infact rather buy 90 dollars in music cd's. Plus cd-r sales go to the recording industry. Sony cd burner and dvd players go back to sony recording too, same company, different departments. Maybe UNIVERSAL cd burner be a good change=)

[Kooperman]

In the article, David Bowie is right.....their recorded work will be advertisements for their live shows. The record industry, through "creative accounting" has been stealing their royalties anyway......and if new artists or mid-range artists complain about it, they get blackballed by the industry.

[jonnymnemonic]

That's the solution I see evolving, myself. Of course, as more and more is exchanged over the net, the taxes will need to go higher and higher to compensate. We in the U.S. may soon be deciding between universal medical care and "free" music. With all the trillions of dollars in tax cuts the Republicans have pushed through (go rich people! go big business! yeah, right), the bank account is looking mighty empty.

In fact, here's an interesting statistic I read. The congressional budget office predicts deficits and surpluses. Since Bush became president, the CBO (congressional budget office) has shown a decline in that amount (from a massive surplus to a massive deficit) that is SO LARGE that the decline, all by itself, is as much money as ALL the money the U.S. government took in *combined* from 1789 to 1989. Yikes! (The amount was around $8 trillion, we went from projected surplus of 5.6 trillion to projected deficit of 2.5 trillion.)

Not all Bush's fault, to be sure. But a lot of it is. Those tax cuts for the rich, those really affected the projections. And Bush has yet to veto ANY spending bill, and there's a ton of pork for big businesses on every single one, because the republican congress *knows* he won't veto them. When the wolves are guarding the henhouse...

[Kooperman]

Bill Clinton is advising the roster of Democratic presidential hopefuls to drum hard on the fact that he (Clinton), because of his income, gets a tax break, yet many kids are being thrown out of meal programs at school.

[jonnymnemonic]

I seriously wish we could have Clinton back. That man knew how to use the veto stick. He was the master with it. Yeah, there were some stalemates here and there between him and Congress, but he was stubborn enough not to budge and, by and large, he protected the hen house very well. He was the reason we ever had that CBO $5.6 trillion surplus projection that the grand old party has grandly partied away.

This current congress and president seem to me to be like someone with kickass credit who knows he's got six months to live. Spend! Spend it all! And then spend on credit, because what the hell, I'm gonna die anyway! Too bad there's gonna be another generation of people paying the tab on all this, who won't have anything like the life we have been able to have.

[Afn]

Originally posted by Kooperman

1) What all this means for the future of intellectual property, and some businesses, is as unpredictable as the open-source revolution itself. In the music business, it seems remarkable that only a few believe the technology cannot be held in check.

One of those few is David Bowie. "I'm fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing," Mr. Bowie said in an interview last year. The future of the music industry, he suggests, is 2) that songs are essentially advertisements and artists will have to make a living by performing on tour.

3)In a book to be published next year, Mr. Fisher recommends placing a 15 percent tax on Internet access and a 15 percent tax on devices used for storing and copying music and movies like CD-burners, MP3 players and blank CD's.

The funds raised, he estimates, would be about $2.5 billion in 2004, roughly the projected amount the recording industry and Hollywood would lose to online piracy. The music business and 4) Hollywood would get refunds based on what works were the most popular downloads.


1) Quote me on this, the corporations that have the means today, will have the means tomarrow. If Copyright is no longer profitable, they will collude to invent a system that is.

2) Indentured servants. Just what we have today. Create a hit song that influences culture and win a contract to write songs and perform for death cola.

3) Never will work.

4) a flat based tax would be pro-rated so the major studios would get most of the money, and the independents would have a small percentage of what is collected.


The system that I propose is much better, thought out than a flat rate tax. People want access and lifestyles to support a family and prosper.

[Lamourlady]

good article, kooperman!
all i can say is that it will be interesting to see what does come of this...


the basic software and communications technology of the Internet lies in the public domain — open for all to use.

[shawners]

remember ONE IMPORTANT THIng, IF im paying taxes on it, does it mean i dont have to buy anything ever again, Cause i wont.. ILLL KEEP DOWNLoading, and not even buying the albums i like, cause the money is going to the record companies no matter what, are we given a license to download if we pay taxes, or will they profit from the taxes and use it to stop us from downloading?

[anotherjustme]

Originally posted by shawners
remember ONE IMPORTANT THIng, IF im paying taxes on it, does it mean i dont have to buy anything ever again, Cause i wont.. ILLL KEEP DOWNLoading, and not even buying the albums i like, cause the money is going to the record companies no matter what, are we given a license to download if we pay taxes, or will they profit from the taxes and use it to stop us from downloading?

Again, I'm too lazy to type, so I'll use a quote to address your post.:wings




Instead of having those "fat cats" record labels, that are taking advantage of alll the artists that want to break thru, we should make ONE HUGE LABEL, OWNED AND CONTROLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Now think about it... it will not even use any of the taxpayers money. On the contrary... it will path up many of the budged holes... even artists would finally be treated fair...

[Afn]

Start of Quote:

Originally posted by shawners
remember ONE IMPORTANT THIng, IF im paying taxes on it, 1) does it mean i dont have to buy anything ever again, Cause i wont.. ILLL KEEP DOWNLoading, and not even buying the albums i like, cause the money is going to the record companies no matter what, 2) are we given a license to download if we pay taxes, or will they profit from the taxes and use it to stop us from downloading?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again, I'm too lazy to type, so I'll use a quote to address your post.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instead of having those "fat cats" record labels, that are taking advantage of alll the artists that want to break thru, we should make ONE HUGE LABEL, OWNED AND 3) CONTROLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Now think about it... it will not even use any of the taxpayers money. On the contrary...4) it will path up many of the budged holes... even artists would 5) finally be treated fair...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of Quote


1) Today, things have value, and many things have high value. Technology may change the value we place in things. Meaning, many things 'objects' we pay for today, will have little real value in the future.

2) This brings up an important issue, and a very important issue that is, can you restrict access to and licenese information? Can you create serial numbers to information and for no good reason TO profit from restricting information in return for access? The reasonable person agrees that restriction is amoral. Create everything for the good of society, or do not create it.

3) A universal system, a registry that allows creators, labels and citizens access what society creates for a per download, flat rate universal tax of .03 per download would give every citizen access. creators income, and society a universal library that documents and stores all intelectual property ment for public consumption.

4) It may or may not solve the budget problem, Congress can make any law they want to get out of any crisis.

5) A society that works for everyone. That is all I want, and I speak with passion on this and many other subjects.


:)

[shawners]

trust me, the artist will get screwed if Government gets involved.
I work for the Post office, we use no tax paying dollars. Government would not let people rant and rave about their mothers, or any one for that matter, Government is to control. They have no business being in the music, have you ever seen their parties at the white house with the bands? It looks so awful.
The only thing that can save us, is if the RIAA managed to take their head out of their ass for once.

[jonnymnemonic]

The phrase "Create everything for the good of society, or do not create it" simply doesn't work. You certainly get SOME quality things created with that philosophy. But, by and large, most things would be lost.

Rembrandt's portraits, the Sistine Chapel, all the works of Shakespeare, many MANY other cultural works - they would not exist had their creators not been compensated.

You would still get some stuff, of course. Van Gogh's works (he died poor), Churchill's writings (for what they're worth) because he had enough money that he didn't need to be paid (the same goes for Aristitle and Plato and Pliny - all voluntarily financed by the wealthy).

Remove financial incentive, as an experiement, for, say, 10 years, or 20 years, and you would be stunned at how quickly the music, movie, literary and software development (games, etc) businesses dissolve. There would be a mass exodus to other jobs like you wouldn't believe. You might end up with 1 percent, maybe even 5 percent with luck, of the same number of people doing creative work (without being paid for it) as we have today. That is QUITE a price to pay.

Not to mention, where would all these people find work? Jobs are scarce NOW. Put a few million more people in the unemployment lines and we'd have to raise taxes dramatically to cover that. In effect, we'd be paying them for NOT producing anything rather than paying them for creating works of cultural benefit. Eventually, sure, they'd become street-sweepers and waiters and auto-workers and such, but it'd take a while to absorb that many people into the service industries.

[Afn]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
The phrase "Create everything for the good of society, or do not create it" simply doesn't work. You certainly get SOME quality things created with that philosophy. But, by and large, most things would be lost.

Rembrandt's portraits, the Sistine Chapel, all the works of Shakespeare, many MANY other cultural works -1) they would not exist had their creators not been compensated.

You would still get some stuff, of course. Van Gogh's works (he died poor), Churchill's writings (for what they're worth) because he had enough money that he didn't need to be paid (the same goes for Aristitle and Plato and Pliny - 2) all voluntarily financed by the wealthy).

Remove financial incentive, as an experiement, for, say, 10 years, or 20 years, and you would be stunned at how quickly the music, movie, literary and software development (games, etc) 3) businesses dissolve. There would be a mass exodus to other jobs like you wouldn't believe. You might end up with 1 percent, maybe even 5 percent with luck, of the same number of people doing creative work (without being paid for it) as we have today. That is QUITE a price to pay.

4) Not to mention, where would all these people find work? Jobs are scarce NOW. Put a few million more people in the unemployment lines and we'd have to raise taxes dramatically to cover that. In effect, we'd be paying them for NOT producing anything rather than paying them for creating works of cultural benefit. 5) Eventually, sure, they'd become street-sweepers and waiters and auto-workers and such, but it'd take a while to absorb that many people into the 6) service industries.

1) Your claim is that if works of art were commodity priced, or priced at .03 per work, there would be no incentive to produce art. There is no financial incentive to add content on the www web, but millions add and produce content with no request for payment.

Work will still be produced, less work overall, but as the world becomes more connected, the best free work, will be viewed payment or not.

2) Yes, the wealthy did support the arts community, as the wealthy do today. Most of PBS content is bought\sponsored by corporations. What ever you buy, you tend to own.

3) We do not need as many people to produce the products that we need in society today. Thus re-training, prisons and unemployment is comon.

4) Works progress administration, during the great depression made some of the best well crafted public buildings in America, and employing people who otherwise would not have work.

Today, many of these buildings are still standing and in active use.

There are many professions that thanks to technology are obsolete. The question is, does society play the game, "You Loose", and create a society where the average citizen is lucky to win the "job lottery" or "housing lottery", and millions do not win, and have no chance of winning access.

5) Overgeneralization, the real issue is what do we do with people who are displaced by technology or ecconomic factors, that have homes, payments and children and no hope of attaining the means (income, CASH) to keep the kids fed and in a home, not a homeless shelter. (9-11, Content Industries, fuel crunch, war, ect.)

6) Add the word 'Automated' to service industries, and very few will have jobs as we 'de-job' society for automated and robotic processes.

There is nothing stopping a great depression in 2004 or 2008, for example. The problems we have are very serious, even in a depression, some work will be produced, and people who are not made homeless or loose right to access electricity, will still have millions of web sites and information available online, all competing with pre-paid entertainment.

:)

[anotherjustme]

Originally posted by Afn
, Congress can make any law they want to get out of any crisis.

I have to make you really well aware, and try to make you realize of the power of internet.
Before it, they could do whatever they wanted. Let's say you and all of the ppl that you know felt that what they did was wrong. And there were many "groups" like your, feeling the same way, all togheter it could be even 70-80% of all citizens in a given country. Now because you wouldn't know that there is more ppl that feel the same way as you do, you would give up thinking,"I can't do anything by myself"... that was before...
Now the internet gave us the power to comunicate. To see that you're not alone, that someone is making decisions against everything that people stand for.

Originally posted by Afn
5) A society that works for everyone. That is all I want, and I speak with passion on this and many other subjects.
This is an ultimate goal of human kind.
Now I'd like to tell you something, that not everyone is aware of (especially Americans)
Do you remeber something called "Comunism"? I know that most americans assotiate this word with this "Bad eastern Europe system". You gotta think this way, because you lived in the times that your government, tried to "program" your mind to think this way. But do you know what is the real ideology behind Comunism? Probably not, so let me tell you...
The real idea that was called "comunism" was, to create a society, that does not have better or worse people. The idea was..."we're all humans... Either you're a doctor, or a construction worker... you're needed and have same oportunities in life... I'll build a home for you, and you'll heal me when I'm sick".
You see... it was something that could be beatiful. But it didn't work, because once some people got into positions with power, they began taking advantage of it, for their own gain. It's human nature, that's why it couldn't work.

Now on the other hand, we have Capitalism. Which basically says... "you can do all that you can afford". Hence it's a very similar thing... only now people that had power were those that had the most money...

I said that, because I still belive that this "Perfect society" could become a real thing. And the key is, to have system that would combine ideas of "Comunism" and "Capitalism"...
But that was just a side note, and I don't think it will hapen for 10-20 generations after us.

[Omyn]

Yes sadly it didnt work because of people becoming greedy.

If the world could get their act together and stop killing each other for a second and realise that you can do much more together than working against someone then we wouldnt have half the problems we have now.

I for one am all for communism.

[Lucian]

Everyone thinks "tax" but why should taxes go to corporations?

Thats corporate welfare, there should be clear seperation from state and corporation.

Should we all pay taxes so the church can run? Well?

Here is my solution, I'll agree to paying taxes if I myself get compensated whenever I share a file with someone, I'd then distribute more files, musicians also should get compensated, and this should be tied into an advanced government built P2P exchange network,

[Afn]

Originally posted by anotherjustme
I have to make you really well aware, and try to make you realize of the power of internet.
Before it, they could do whatever they wanted. Let's say you and all of the ppl that you know felt that what they did was wrong. And there were many "groups" like your, feeling the same way, all togheter it could be even 70-80% of all citizens in a given country. Now because you wouldn't know that there is more ppl that feel the same way as you do, you would give up thinking,"I can't do anything by myself"... that was before...
Now the internet gave us the power to comunicate. To see that you're not alone, that someone is making decisions against everything that people stand for.

This is an ultimate goal of human kind.
Now I'd like to tell you something, that not everyone is aware of (especially Americans)
1) Do you remeber something called "Comunism"? I know that most americans assotiate this word with this "Bad eastern Europe system". You gotta think this way, because you lived in the times that your government, tried to "program" your mind to think this way. But do you know what is the real ideology behind Comunism? Probably not, so let me tell you...
The real idea that was called "comunism" was, to create a society, that does not have better or worse people. The idea was..."we're all humans... Either you're a doctor, or a construction worker... you're needed and have same oportunities in life... I'll build a home for you, and you'll heal me when I'm sick".
You see... it was something that could be beatiful. But it didn't work, because once some people got into positions with power, they began taking advantage of it, for their own gain. It's human nature, that's why it couldn't work.

Now on the other hand, we have Capitalism. Which basically says... "you can do all that you can afford". Hence it's a very similar thing... only now people that had power were those that had the most money...

2) I said that, because I still belive that this "Perfect society" could become a real thing. And the key is, to have system that would combine ideas of "Comunism" and "Capitalism"...
But that was just a side note, and I don't think it will hapen for 10-20 generations after us.

1) Communism, USSR version, was socialism. Infact the marx's own theories were changed to fit the definition of the [soviet] revololution.

2) Technology is rapidly changing so blankin' fast that what we thought would take generations, are taking years. What we thought would take years take days, ect. KurzweilAI.net is a great site from a great mind.

The advances of our society may 'meltdown' our society, because we were never able to deal or process exponential change on an exponential scale.

[ROMANTICGUY50]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
That's the solution I see evolving, myself. Of course, as more and more is exchanged over the net, the taxes will need to go higher and higher to compensate. We in the U.S. may soon be deciding between universal medical care and "free" music. With all the trillions of dollars in tax cuts the Republicans have pushed through (go rich people! go big business! yeah, right), the bank account is looking mighty empty.

In fact, here's an interesting statistic I read. The congressional budget office predicts deficits and surpluses. Since Bush became president, the CBO (congressional budget office) has shown a decline in that amount (from a massive surplus to a massive deficit) that is SO LARGE that the decline, all by itself, is as much money as ALL the money the U.S. government took in *combined* from 1789 to 1989. Yikes! (The amount was around $8 trillion, we went from projected surplus of 5.6 trillion to projected deficit of 2.5 trillion.)

Not all Bush's fault, to be sure. But a lot of it is. Those tax cuts for the rich, those really affected the projections. And Bush has yet to veto ANY spending bill, and there's a ton of pork for big businesses on every single one, because the republican congress *knows* he won't veto them. When the wolves are guarding the henhouse...

I agree with this quote and I like this one as well.
jonnymnemonic mande this quote:
I seriously wish we could have Clinton back. That man knew how to use the veto stick. He was the master with it. Yeah, there were some stalemates here and there between him and Congress, but he was stubborn enough not to budge and, by and large, he protected the hen house very well. He was the reason we ever had that CBO $5.6 trillion surplus projection that the grand old party has grandly partied away.

This current congress and president seem to me to be like someone with kickass credit who knows he's got six months to live. Spend! Spend it all! And then spend on credit, because what the hell, I'm gonna die anyway! Too bad there's gonna be another generation of people paying the tab on all this, who won't have anything like the life we have been able to have.
_________________________
I think Bush is one of the worst president's we have ever had. The only Replubican I ever voted for was Nixon. I liked alot of his social policies. I hope Bush looses his bid for reelection, (cause he stole the election, as far as I am concerned) but for that to happen, the Democrats have got to get their shit together, BIG TIME.
PEACE TO ALL OF YOU

:fire
:devil DOWN WITH THE RIAA & MPAA:devil

[MainManMoe]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
The phrase "Create everything for the good of society, or do not create it" simply doesn't work. You certainly get SOME quality things created with that philosophy. But, by and large, most things would be lost.


True, examples of what will be lost are works like Britney Spears, Seinfeld and Temptation Island..I do recognize you have a point, but neither Shakespeare, Micelangelo or Rembrant made their work for copyrights i.e. the idea of being paid for a work beyond sale. There will always be sponsors of the great arts, as indeed enabled all your examples to do their work. None of the sponsors thought to make a profit of their filantropy while rather give something to either God or society, atleast in your examples. Ironically, since copyrights were invented and implemented as the conventional, no single work whatsoever has been made that can compare to any of the renaissance/post renaissance works. So while you are correct that the amount of produce increased with copyrights the quality certainly decreased dramatically. The very idea of owning something you cannot hold in your hand is alienating at best.

About communism. A beautiful thought, absolutely the only worthy philosophy for a humane society. Alas, humans are not worthy of such an utopia. Greedy, shallow, egotistical and shortsighted ideals like the American dream (he with the most toys wins) fits the volatile human nature so much better. I have no doubt that the idealized form of communism will eventually prevail, if and when our species become a global tech society, but it is so far off in time that the chances we as a species will not survive that long are even greater. Socialism is the utopian ideal that communism is constructed upon, it is nonsense to talk about communism and capitalism in the same sentence. Capitalism demands maximization of the profit. This can only be done by some form of exploitation. Socialism and thus communism is based on the idea of equalizing the assets and goods and eliminating the unworthy and destructive exploitation of our fellow humans.

[anotherjustme]

Originally posted by Afn
1) Communism, USSR version, was socialism. Infact the marx's own theories were changed to fit the definition of the [soviet] revololution.
socialism was something that came after the fall of comunism.. it was something, that tried to incorporate the "everybody is equal" idea, into western "money rules" system. So it was just another try (nice one if became true) to give people the real freedom. But it again failed because of people in the high places.
Now as you said "soviet revolution", was simply put, a political propaganda. But it wasn't only a soviet thing. US was using this techniqe, same way as russians did... In US you 've been told, how terible your life would be if you lived in USSR.
And at the same time... (best example is the fuel shortage that has hit US), USSR was telling people... "look at them... you thought it's so beatifull over there, and now they are all paralized.)

"2) Technology is rapidly changing so blankin' fast that what we thought would take generations, are taking years. What we thought would take years take days."
Still, when you think about it, there isn't any new break thru inventions comming up. Everything now is only modifications of existing technology.


"The advances of our society may 'meltdown' our society, because we were never able to deal or process exponential change on an exponential scale. "

I don't believe that our rapid progress will eventually lead to our anihilation..
But, who knows... we can only speculate about stuff like that.

[Afn]

Originally posted by anotherjustme
socialism was something that came after the fall of comunism.. it was something, that tried to incorporate the "everybody is equal" idea, into western "money rules" system. So it was just another try (nice one if became true) to give people the real freedom. 1) But it again failed because of people in the high places.
Now as you said "soviet revolution", was simply put, a political propaganda. But it wasn't only a soviet thing. US was using this techniqe, same way as russians did... In US you 've been told, how terible your life would be if you lived in USSR.
And at the same time... (best example is the fuel shortage that has hit US), USSR was telling people... "look at them... you thought it's so beatifull over there, and now they are all paralized.)

Still, when you think about it, 2) there isn't any new break thru inventions comming up. Everything now is only modifications of existing technology.



I don't believe that our rapid progress will eventually lead to our anihilation..
But, who knows... we can only 3) speculate about stuff like that.

1) Regan said that with enough pressure, the USSR would break first. You could say that did come true.

2) Nanotech is new, the internet is new to how it is changing society. 5 years ago you could not send video around the internet. Today you can. So that is a real change that has real consequences. Today we can do tasks that were unheard of 5 years ago because of technology.

Real change, but 10 years ago if I said I will buy any thing I want online, I would be told... sure but when?

We now have the systems in place to allow unheard of change.

3) Speculation is fun. Not always profitable, but can lead to meaningful conversations.

[lizardsforall]

Earth Station Five, a company based in the West Bank, surfaced recently with claims of being at war with the industry association. It promises the latest in anonymous Internet file sharing. Its motto: "Resistance is futile."

More ESV Bull$hit... Will it ever end?

[anotherjustme]

Originally posted by Afn
1) Regan said that with enough pressure, the USSR would break first. You could say that did come true.
I can't say it, because I just don't know. Those where some really fake times, and it's kind of hard, to even make a simple assumption.
Although, I do believe in some of those theories, about americans faking the whole "moon odysey". I could be wrong... hmmm... well those that first came out with this theory might be wrong, but if you think about those times, it does make sense that the president could not allow the whole country appear as less advanced then USSR. So since he didn't have the means, he did order to stage the whole moon walk...
But that is just one of those things that we'll never know the truth.


3) Speculation is fun. Not always profitable, but can lead to meaningful conversations.
I agree, it can lead you towards some interesting conversations. But the mind stimulation is not the only posible reward. If our discusion is interesting, then no matter what the subject is, it can also teach someone (you learn something new every day), motivate someone (if one will become aware of something more that he was used to) and maybe even inspire someone...
It's just... different things have different individual effect on each end every one of us...


enough... Discussion is something relaxing though right?

[Lamourlady]

wow.....i'm loving u newer members....not only am i learning a whole hell of a lot......but very thought provoking.
i never really understood the whole.....communism, socialism societies.
thanks for the insight.
i'd like to see our futures, as something, that could take all the best, of which u speak.
it would truly be a "sharing society".

[Theinfamousone]

P2P is the start of a sharing society, that's for sure. "I may have more than you, but if I can spare it, I will share it with you."

The RIAA is captalism incarnate. They absolutely can't stand the rich not controlling everything while working the poor to death and giving them very little in return.

The article is amazingly good. The Internet is truly all about sharing what you have with others. Think about all the random web pages that are made from people who just want to share their information with other people. All the pictures and videos posted. The open source software movement.

I especially like the quote where the guy asks why we should take out the knees of the internet, (thus punishing hundreds of millions of people) just for one industry too stubborn to invest in the future.

[Afn]

Originally posted by Lamourlady
wow.....i'm loving u newer members....not only am i learning a whole hell of a lot......but very thought provoking.
i never really understood the whole.....communism, socialism societies.
thanks for the insight.
i'd like to see our futures, as something, that could take all the best, of which u speak.
it would truly be a "sharing society".

The movie dances with wolves, rent a copy of it because it shows the progression of societies to a sharing society.

War/Conflict based to
Trading based societies
To sharing based societies
To Gift-Giving based societies.

Dances with wolves was one of those movies I did not see when it first came out, and did not catch it on video, but just rented it on dvd, and is one of those movies that holds up over time.

[Kooperman]

Originally posted by Lamourlady
wow.....i'm loving u newer members....not only am i learning a whole hell of a lot......but very thought provoking.
i never really understood the whole.....communism, socialism societies.
thanks for the insight.
i'd like to see our futures, as something, that could take all the best, of which u speak.
it would truly be a "sharing society".

Some more information on socialism:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[anotherjustme]

Originally posted by Lamourlady
i'd like to see our futures, as something, that could take all the best, of which u speak.
it would truly be a "sharing society".

When you think about it... Sharing community is somehing that combines all of the best aspects from every "system"

In the "sharing nation", there is no prejudice, discrimination, or judgement based on personal posessions...We're equal, and nobody cares where someone comes from...

Beautifull thing, I just hope that it won;t be destroyed by "tyrants" like RIAA...

Reclaim the Public Domain (http://www.petitiononline.com/eldred/petition.html) Sign it!!
To: U.S. Congress, RIAA, All Record Com (http://www.petitiononline.com/riaawar/petition.html)Sign it!!

[Lamourlady]

I especially like the quote where the guy asks why we should take out the knees of the internet, (thus punishing hundreds of millions of people) just for one industry too stubborn to invest in the future.

i too, like that quote, Infamousone......it says it all, without insulting the scumbags too much.

thanks for the links, guys...done & done!

btw, Afn........i loved the movie, "Dances With Wolves".
but, i saw the movie for something other than what u mention.
but that is a subject for another day.

i look forward to all your many postings.

[anotherjustme]

The movie dances with wolves...
...and is one of those movies that holds up over time.

Some movies are just work of art, and never loose sense with time.
That's why they are called classics.
Beside classics, I love movies (and those are the best most of the time), that do not need some fancy SFX, but the story line itself is enough for it, to be considered great.
The last one from this kind I've seen, was "Memento". I highly recomend, if you enjoy inteligent movies. To fully understand this movie, you will have to watch it twice, because then you will see details, that you have not notice the first time around. I even watched it third time and still found many things wich I have missed even though seen it twice already...


More ESV Bull$hit... Will it ever end?

Just out of curiosity... What do you have against them? It just sounded like you hate them for something.
I've read many posts about them and on ZP, they have been highly criticized from the start, what has eventualy led to this "quarel" between the ZP and ES5.
I just don't get why people are so hostile towards them. So far, all I saw was just innocent "word spreading" by them, to make ppl aware of it's existance and so far it seems like they have nothing but good intentions. There was a recent acusation, that they have planted within the program some malicious code, but it has been proven, that it was designed to get auto updates and it was only a unforseen side effect it carried along with it. And after pointing it out, they had fixed that right away.
To me, they don't seem to have anything up the sleeve, but I could be wrong.
I just hope I'm right...
If anyone knows about some kind wrong doing on their part, please let me know. I'd like to know who our enemies are.


i too, like that quote, Infamousone......it says it all, without insulting the scumbags too much.

The thing is, that the "Infamousones" believe, that it is their God given right, to harrass, treaten and even imprison people, that like to relax a little by listening to music, but cannot afford to spend 15 bucks on one CD, just to be able to listen to only one good song on it, because rest of them is CRAP. They don't even stop at children (sued 12y/o girl).

Did anyone notice what kind of a message is being sent to us, when **AA is pushing for those criminal charges and a jail time for sharing files on line?

Think about it... A maximum penalty for just one violation of copyright law (one song), is punishable up to 5 years in prison, if found guilty. Now think if someone has been sharing his entire CD collection and he was caught, his PC was ceased as evidence to prove, that he had shared tousands of songs. It means he could get a life in prison, right?...
So now, think about murder. Even if convicted your sentence could be much lower then the one for sharing.

So, is message they are trying to send out, something like that...?

"Don't share our music, it's a bad, horrible and highly punishable crime!!!
It's better for you to go to the music store, kill the employee and take the music you wanted there. This way, you will also get CD's and not just music, plus if you're caught and get convicted, you get lower sentence!!!"

... It seems like it, doesn't it?...
NICE!!!... So what will the **AA organizations come up with next?... Oh... I know... Their next message will say...

"You like action movies, with a lot of explosions? Forget about it, it's a thing of a past. Go out on the streets and expierience that kind of action first hand!!! Just call us and will send you everything you need. Granades, rocket launchers, mines... just give us a call!!!
Each item sold separately. Distributor cannot be held liable for damages, or injuries inflicted by our products."

<sarcasm>And the best part is, that "they are doing all that, for us."... awww... how sweet...

[Afn]

Some movies are just work of art, and never loose sense with time.
That's why they are called classics.
1. Beside classics, I love movies (and those are the best most of the time), that do not need some fancy SFX, but the story line itself is enough for it, to be considered great.
The last one from this kind I've seen, was "Memento". I highly recomend, if you enjoy inteligent movies. To fully understand this movie, you will have to watch it twice, because then you will see details, that you have not notice the first time around. I even watched it third time and still found many things wich I have missed even though seen it twice already...



Just out of curiosity... What do you have against them? It just sounded like you hate them for something.
I've read many posts about them and on ZP, they have been highly criticized from the start, what has eventualy led to this "quarel" between the ZP and 2. ES5.
I just don't get why people are so hostile towards them. So far, all I saw was just innocent "word spreading" by them, to make ppl aware of it's existance and so far it seems like they have nothing but good intentions. There was a recent acusation, that they have planted within the program some malicious code, but it has been proven, that it was designed to get auto updates and it was only a unforseen side effect it carried along with it. And after pointing it out, they had fixed that right away.
To me, they don't seem to have anything up the sleeve, but I could be wrong.
I just hope I'm right...
If anyone knows about some kind wrong doing on their part, please let me know. I'd like to know who our enemies are.


The thing is, that the "Infamousones" believe, that it is their God given right, to harrass, treaten and even imprison people, that like to relax a little by listening to music, but cannot afford to spend 15 bucks on one CD, just to be able to listen to only one good song on it, because rest of them is CRAP. They don't even stop at children 3. (sued 12y/o girl).

Did anyone notice what kind of a message is being sent to us, when **AA is pushing for those criminal charges and a jail time for sharing files on line?

Think about it... A maximum penalty for just one violation of copyright law (one song), is punishable up to 5 years in prison, if found guilty. Now think if someone has been sharing his entire CD collection and he was caught, his PC was ceased as evidence to prove, that he had shared tousands of songs. It means he could get a life in prison, right?...
So now, think about murder. Even if convicted your sentence could be much lower then the one for sharing.

4. So, is message they are trying to send out, something like that...?

"Don't share our music, it's a bad, horrible and highly punishable crime!!!
It's better for you to go to the music store, kill the employee and take the music you wanted there. This way, you will also get CD's and not just music, plus if you're caught and get convicted, you get lower sentence!!!"

... It seems like it, doesn't it?...
NICE!!!... So what will the **AA organizations come up with next?... Oh... I know... Their next message will say...

"You like action movies, with a lot of explosions? Forget about it, it's a thing of a past. Go out on the streets and expierience that kind of action first hand!!! Just call us and will send you everything you need. Granades, rocket launchers, mines... just give us a call!!!
Each item sold separately. 5. Distributor cannot be held liable for damages, or injuries inflicted by our products."

<sarcasm>And the best part is, that "they are doing all that, for us."... awww... how sweet...

1. Did not like memento. I do like smart movies and the work of Tykwer. Run lola run, The Princess and the Warror, Winter Sleepers. Winter Sleeprs is like memeto, and a movie I could watch. All of those movies are German. So if you do not speak German, you have to use the DVD subtittles.

2. ES5 is a poorly programmed. Better solutions exist. Open souce solutions are better. You have more people looking at the code to keep the code 'clean'.

3. That was an industry mistake and serious pr blunder.

4. The message they send is we have power, and we will use our power and money to get what we want. The hell with democracy and public policy. We get what we want. We are a trust.

5. Product liablity is enforced. However, the courts ruled that television shows are not liable if a viewer performs what is on television and wins a darwin award (death before reproduction). In other words, if you copy what is shown on television, the producer and the brodcaster can not be liable for causing that action. So you can not sue the TV station for what they broadcast.

6. The RIAA is a trust. There was an article link posted on zp about Edison and the early music and film trusts controlled the industry. Hollywood was created to get away from the control and royality system.

7. A trust is when you own two railroads and the only competition owns two railroads. You agree to charge DOUBLE the amount on any access to the FOUR railroads, and split the profit equally on each "ride" "Customer" or "sale".