On 12/30/07, Craig White <
craigwhite@azapple.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 23:31 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote:
> > On 12/30/07, Craig White <craigwhite@azapple.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 22:42 -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote:
> > > > On 12/30/07, Kevin Brown <kevin_brown@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
Craig,
Well its certainly good to see someone else picked this one up. I
don't think weve ever had an FCC so blatantly serving corporate
interests since its inception in the early part of the 20th century.
Powell brought some balance to the FCC, Martin is a complete and total
sell-out. The media has become noticeably worse in the past 5 years,
and we make a move to loosen regulations?
I hope you all have seen this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xinak8b-XKE , you should be able to locate
the second section. Due to these new rulings, I would suggest
cancelling all your newspaper subscriptions immediately.
btw- I noticed that someone made a comment about Municipal
Networking on here a little while ago. Please understand that
Muni-Networks were assassinated. Plain and simple. I expect the
people on this list not to confuse the endless drone of corporate
interest with the voice of reason.
-jmz
>
> 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
(text/plain)