It's now illegal to turn on your computer

Mon Dec 31 06:18:23 MST 2007

Tony E - Jaraeth wrote:
> Call me crazy, call me geeky... I kind of wish I could see Gene
> Roddenberry's idea of society come to fruition.  No more bounderies of
> money & barter.  Instead, a society that provides for one another, and
> people have jobs that they like, and benefit the rest of society.  A
> place where everyone has a job, be it an artist, farmer/agriculturalist,
> or some other trade.  Canada is partly there with the government
> provided health care.

In Canada, it is illegal to contract individually with any doctor.  The 
government has a monopoly on all medical payments.  Not even the 
socialist UK goes that far! Call me crazy, but this the total opposite 
of a free society.

BTW, Canada and is one reason our drugs are so expensive.  The 
pharamceutical companies made a deal with them and shifted the burden 
onto us.  Which is why I hope people import as many Canadian drugs as 
possible, and bring the whole system crashing down.

Sorry to get so far off-topic.  I must now scold myself.  Bad, bad, bad!
Vaughn

> 
> Now if music artists decide to play music for the entertainment of
> society, and people provide for their needs, we get closer to a type of
> utopian society in my opinion.  Problem is, people are greedy.  They
> want one of a kind pieces of art, not reprints or reproductions.  They
> want all the money or physical wealth.   Probably not in my lifetime, or
> the next 5... but I dream of a day we live like those envisioned in Star
> Trek.  Oddly enough, much of the theories discussed in Star Trek are
> relevant, and "theoretically possible"... maybe a society without this
> crappy DMCA, RIAA & screwed up society bent on wealth, maybe then,
> humanity will get back on course... but I digress, World War 3 would
> happen before that.
> 
> Just my two pence... wait, inflation, just my $20.
> 
>  ~ Tony E
> 
> 
> 
> Craig White wrote:
>> On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 23:31 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote:
>>   
>>> On 12/30/07, Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com> wrote:
>>>     
>>>> On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 22:42 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote:
>>>>       
>>>>> On 12/30/07, Kevin Brown <kevin_brown at qwest.net> wrote:
>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>> cannot ignore the need for some level of province.  Without fences,
>>>>>>>>> there are no crops.
>>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>>> Really? Most of the farms I know of don't have fences. They seem to pull
>>>>>>>> in lots of crops.
>>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>   Really?  I think I'll just go over there and get me some.  Who says
>>>>>>> whats wild and what is the farmers property?
>>>>>>>             
>>>>>> That they don't have fences does not mean that it is open access for
>>>>>> all.  I've lived in communities where fences were against building codes
>>>>>> for a few reasons.  One, they are unsightly and block people's view.
>>>>>> Two, they impeded the wildlife of the area.  Lots of farms (rather than
>>>>>> ranches) don't have them as it makes it easier to get access to the crop
>>>>>> areas with the farming equipment.  Ranches have some fences to contain
>>>>>> the animals so they can be tracked and less likely to be a problem
>>>>>> (cattle in the roads...)
>>>>>>           
>>>>>   ok... I think you may be missing my point here.  I'm not sure if
>>>>> Hans is trying to drive home some point, or hes trying to look daft by
>>>>> throwing wingnuts around.  The point is, whether you have a physical
>>>>> fence or not, there are boundaries.  One of the most basic, if not the
>>>>> most basic, form of property is land.  Most anthropologists beleive
>>>>> that our concepts of land ownership were introduced with the advent of
>>>>> agriculture.  The basic thing to establish is that, no farmer is going
>>>>> to invest in cultivating crops unless he is offered some kind of
>>>>> assurance that the land he works is his, or his /property/.  Call it a
>>>>> fence, call it a boundary, whatever you want.
>>>>>
>>>>>   now, what we are currently trying to do is to extend our concept of
>>>>> property to the world of ideas.  Its not really a new development, as
>>>>> copyright has been around for a long time, however its introduction
>>>>> does appear to coincide with the beginning of 'modernism'.  However
>>>>> the current crisis is that we are starting to realize that were not
>>>>> dealing with land here, but we are treating it as such.  But, some of
>>>>> the aspects persist... no one is going to cultivate land, or in our
>>>>> case /ideas/, or /software/ or /art/, unless they know it will be
>>>>> their property.  So if we cease to support the notion of ideas as
>>>>> property... will production cease?
>>>>>         
>>>> ----
>>>> I have no interest in the borders/fences metaphors myself
>>>>
>>>> There are legal constructs for the idea of racketeering, extortion, and
>>>> then of course, there is always the notion of what rights/restrictions
>>>> are conveyed upon purchase.
>>>>
>>>> As for the notion of ideas as property, that of course is what the DMCA
>>>> has always been about and that clearly pits the consumers against the
>>>> producers as their interests clearly conflict. I think that if the
>>>> value / pricing curve were reasonable for consumers, there wouldn't be
>>>> that much of an issue. The fact remains that music CD's are
>>>> comparatively out of scale. It appears that the cause for these out of
>>>> scale prices is an antiquated system of control over production and
>>>> distribution that drives a massive wedge between the artists and the
>>>> consumers.
>>>>
>>>> Corporate interests are always pitted against those of the public and if
>>>> I recall correctly, the Sherman Anti-Trust act was borne for precisely
>>>> these issues. Unfortunately, 12 years of Republican rule has pushed the
>>>> pendulum way too far to the corporate interests which is why we are
>>>> seeing things like health care costs skyrocket, etc. - not that the
>>>> Democrats have given any indication that this is going to change any
>>>> time soon. I think I stated early on that I didn't necessarily want to
>>>> turn this into a political discussion but you seem insistent on
>>>> parroting the rights of the corporations here.
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>>       
>>>    well I'll try to be as concise as possible.  I think that some
>>> balance does need to be brought to the debate for it to gain
>>> legitimacy.  Right now the problem is exposure of these issues.  I
>>> don't currently support the idea that we should abandon all
>>> Intellectual Property, and it seems that the most vocal people do
>>> advocate this stance.
>>>
>>>    regarding Anti-Trust etc.  I think that there are key aspects of
>>> American law that appear to be totally ignored by the powers that be,
>>> and that are an important part of the American way of governance.  And
>>> this attitude will only cost America in the end.  I do concur with a
>>> point you appear to allude to, that a big problem is a defective
>>> American left-wing.
>>>     
>> ----
>> gosh...let's not go there (left wing politics) - mass media is now under
>> complete control by other interests and not at all likely to get better
>> with Bain Capital (Romney) purchase of Clear Channel and insane
>> deregulation policy of FCC
>>
>> Problem here is very inconsistent application of law and standards, see
>>
>> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/12/riaa-files-supplemental-brief-in.html
>>
>> where the RIAA attorneys say one thing in arguments before SCOTUS and
>> then another in this filing.
>>
>> and boy do we pay big time. Why do you think that we pay 2-3 times more
>> than the rest of the world for pharmaceuticals? Why is it that you can
>> buy drugs in Mexico or Canada that are made by American manufactures for
>> a fraction of the price that it will cost you if you buy it at
>> Walgreens/Wal-Mart/CVS? Do ya think that's why there's a pharmacy at
>> virtually every corner these days? Whenever our government makes a deal
>> with an industry in this country, consumers are bent over the counter
>> with their elbows on the counter.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>>
>>
>>   
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> 
> 
> 