This blog represents a pathetic attempt at understanding human consciousness, since it treats the mind as a one dimensional form of matter, whose entire existence is geared towards sense and functionality. In its materialist essence it denies the possibility for anything beyond ‘these four walls’. The only salvation may be that the wording is restricted to ‘learning’, but this in itself is indicative of a person who treats the mind as merely a functional entity. devoid of that which resides within all of us – total and utter nonsense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2607505/Joe-Biden-plagiarised-Neil-Kinnock-speech.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2614572/Joe-Biden-Barack-Obamas-Vice-Presidential-running-mate-Profile.html

be sure and get in line for your mandatory Swine Flu vaccine…

if your not outraged, you’re not paying attention.

in a different direction i copy ever disc i buy for backup purposes, dvd’s and cd’s can get damaged, same goes for hard drives.
so what does the riaa have to say about persons making copies of their iTunes files for bacup purposes?? (probably comeup with a law suit)

Oz:
“Aren’t you forgetting that patent law provides the opportunity for people to copy inventions after a certain time has passed? This ensures that learning reenters the common pool from which an inventor takes information, thereby becoming available to everyone once again.”

You obviously didn’t read what I wrote very closely. What part of “limited time” did you miss? At root, the essential problem with any and all term extensions of monopoly privileges like copyright (AND patent) is exactly what you’re describing — the ‘content’ DOESN’T become “freely available” for others to build upon, which is exactly the essence of Lessig’s book, “Free Culture.”

The dirty secret behind patent and copyright monopolies, is that innovation, creativity and problem-solving in general is, at best, a more or less lamentable ‘cost’ of doing business, and that profit-seeking, in many cases, trumps any and all other considerations.

You can see this same pattern playing out all across corporate capitalism: why produce quality, well-designed, durable, and long-lasting products when you can produce shabby, badly-designed junk assembled by third-world slave laborers, and charge a hell of a markup, in the process? The other advantage to that, is that the worse the product gets, the more of a market for repairmen, and the more STUFF you sell, when it’s less expensive to buy another one, than have the existing one repaired.

That’s why the slogan “production for use, not for profit” appears as such a paradox: it’s not profit, so much as the relentless maximization of profit by ANY MEANS, that pisses people off. When patent or copyright terms are extended — no matter how short of long the amount — the ‘content’ being monopolized ISN’T free to become part of new creations.

That’s also why our existing version of IP law has seen fit to carve out exceptions like “fair use”: almost everybody recognizes that permitting COMPLETE monopoly-control would be horribly destructive (how would authors or commentators be able to quote what they’re referencing?)

Read back over my article. I explicitly mention the fact that the clause permitting such monopolies specifies that they exist only for a ‘limited time’, and are intended for a specific purpose — advancing ’science and the useful arts’.

The fact that the Supreme Court has basically stated that perpetual copyright on the installment plan is permissible (if for no other reason than they failed to specify a maximum upper limit, or maximum number of times it can be extended/renewed) effectively ensures that cultural ‘content’ encumbered by copyright will NEVER enter the cultural “gene pool” again, UNLESS those using it beg permission AND are in a position to keep bribing the gate-keepers at every turn.

That’s flatly unacceptable, and the more I learn, the more certain I become that IF the choice is between monopoly privileges gone mad (the status quo) and the RIAA’s darkest nightmares of a “digital wild west”, I’ll gladly put on my Stetson.

Sorry for the — admittedly rather florid — verbiage, but I’m in a weird mood today. (Just found out my Grandmother is dead).

Anon:
Yes, that documentary is one of my influences.
Stallman, Lessig, Linus Torvalds, and Eric S. Raymond, as well.
Howard Zinn (”People’s history of the United States” really shattered my preconceptions.)
Another big influence on my thinking here, is that I started my involvement in music by way of Bluegrass jam sessions and an uncle who was one of those old-time fiddle players (Yes, we have that kinda thing here in PA, too.)
That led me to studying folk music, which led me to Ledbelly, which got me thinking about how most of the old Delta blues folks got screwed over by the record companies, which led me to reading about how OTHER people have gotten screwed by the record companies, etc.)

Another big influence is the fact that I live in Pennsylvania, in one of the many decaying, “rust-belt” cities that were left over after the steel industry decided to abandon us, in favor of whatever the hell they’re doing nowadays.

Lots of resonance between where I grew up, and Flint Michigan, how it looked in Michael Moore’s documentary “Roger & Me.”

Plus, there’s the Centralia coal-fire. Some of us from around this area have a sore spot in regard to towns having to be abandoned. I never lived in Centralia (or Picher Oklahoma, for that matter), but they were pretty much like where I’m from, as far as I’ve been able to gather.

Resource-extraction corporations (mining, logging, etc.) poisoning the land to the point where it’s uninhabitable pisses me off, and cultural monopolists — corporate feudalists — killing the very ‘public domain’ from which they INEVITABLY drew to create what they monopolize pisses me off, too.

Thanks for the idea: one of my next submissions will be a recommended reading/viewing list.

Sorry if the article wasn’t as tight as some of the others. Glad you got something from it.

Henry, I have a question for you that is a little off topic from this one. Or maybe something you can write about next? When regulations, laws and Acts are themselves outdated due to the evolution of a people and the technology around them, what is the course of action? I’ll lay a few examples down here:

1. Price increases as technology and people evolve (example Kodak-Eastman versus the photo-plates)
The photo-plate industry was tightly controlled, regulated and prices controlled, only skilled people who mastered these things were able to shot pics properly. Along comes Kodak-Eastman who put a camera in the hands of children. Prices lowered, an industry lost control of their price-schemes and so forth. How does one battle such a beast?

2. Of course we have to look at the music industry:
Recording prices drop: kids can now make videos at home, kids can now sing and put their video’s online, kids don’t need to know anything about a diamond tipped needle to pay a record. Download and play.
Has technology and people evolved together making the record companies obsolete like the photo-plate? If so, are copyright acts and other legislation become outdated for this generation of people who are recording their culture using these technologies?

3. Telco control over smaller players. These Big Telco’s are fixing the prices via regulation right now. But, Bandwidth prices have dropped to just above a couple of cents, yet the big players are forcing mandatory big dollar figures to it upon smaller players, thus preventing people from running to smaller players who are, or should I say, were less expensive.
Would this not be the same type of example as Eastman-Kodak and the music industry? After all this generation is using the net to record their culture. If this is true, should it not be a guarantee to use this evolved technology that this generation evolved with as a human right? To deny access or price it out of the average users wages would be to deny them access to their own culture and freedom of expression, would it not?

4. RCA versus FM radio: As Radio and human understanding of frequencies evolved to produce FM radio, RCA tried to hold it back. Not only holding back a vastly superior technology but holding back culture who could propagate their messages and music from within their own homes to reach other people at great distances, unlike RCA and those who controlled the AM transmitters every x-miles. FM allowed a signal to go across a country. Gone was the control in every village dotted with AM to reach across the land. This stifling of people-technology evolution and culture evolution occurred for years.

Just curious on your thoughts since I’m behind the game here, and you are obviously ahead of it. Maybe there is more you can add in terms of culture, expression, market control from a dying industry, capitalization and control of a dying industry, preventing evolution of technology, preventing evolution of a people, perhaps fear from gov and industry, perhaps a taxation revenue scheme being exploited on the backs of the people? etc…

Yes, human evolution is based on copying the past and evolving the technology, evolving the culture, evolving the people. This is who we are. This is evolution of a people, this is the evolution of technology and cultural evolution.

Just useless random thoughts that I’m trying to equate with current events and they way regulations are protecting it.