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 wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 22:42 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/30/07, Kevin Brown 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@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@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@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss