> 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