Journal lordhelmet01's Journal: But Can You Arrest Them All?
JE003 040924F1200
Sometimes I've gotta wonder. What does it take for industry to notice a need for change? SCO et al are messing around with the regulation of Intellectual Property, without even bothering to properly define it. The entertainment industry is dancing to the same music, in the key of copyright. The pharmaceutical industry builds up patents for naturally-occurring and synthetic chemicals to peddle to doctors seeking clients. What I understand is the need to finance future research and development. But then greed sets in and prohibitive costs pop their ugly little heads up and before you can blink, whammo there's a black market operating at discount prices. Oh, and before I move on let's not forget government's fundraising efforts through taxes, fees, and outright bribery.
Now, it's no question that theft (the ultimate discount) is illegal and anticapitalist. Open source activists can be compared to communist idealists since they advocate, in simplicity, the belief that information is common property and available to all. For the most part, governments operate as open source mechanisms, if you have the patience to read all the legislation and amendments, and the understanding to wade through the undocumented code that is the civil service. The downer is that this organisation that represents Joe and Mary Sixpack is allegedly run in their interests by those gifted with the ability to run it. Then that little word called "revenue" enters in.
Corporations, at least, are honest about existing solely for the cause of profit. Governments, supposedly exist in the middle ground between corporation and non-profit societies. This could be seen as moderation between extremes, and such a thing generally works, right? Why all the griping? It probably has something to do with John Q Public not liking his tax dollars getting wasted and the government getting co-opted by the corporations. So what does John do?
He sees banks making record profits. He sees entertainers and athletes making boatloads of cash that he ultimately contributes to. He sees ads for prescription drugs on the American channels from huge drug companies and he hears unceasing, unrefundable excretia flow from the **AAs while prices for all of the above skyrocket and his neighbour's job gets downsized/outsourced. Where's the balance?
If industry were to get its way everybody would pay full ticket price for everything, every time. Without restraint, this is not sustainable - if it were there'd be no file sharing, freeloading, or theft. If government were to get its way, the highest bidder would win the favourable policies and the taxpayer would subsidise the expenses associated (but of course this is purely hypothetical! *cough*Bombardier/Halliburton*/cough*). But then there's the consumers. As far as numbers go, they're pretty darn superior. They happen to (theoretically) OWN the government and control it's operation. They've got their own economy going right now and it's got the higher-ups tearing their hair out. Government is supposed to be, among other things, the mediating body between consumers/taxpayers and industries/big business. And yet government is trying to meddle in a fledgling new economy where people pay affordable, fair prices for what they like, and they lose what they don't like. What's the problem here? What we need is separation of church and state & BUSINESS! Round up the lobbyists, be they special interest groups or thinly veiled industry or corporate bribery, and SHOOT THEM ON SIGHT! Why should business be able to declare that a fair market economy such as the one that is developing now is illegal?
Government is by the people, for the people. Business and free enterprise are a side effect of our economic system, not a foundation of government. Sure they provide jobs and money for the economy - but we'd get by without them with an alternative structure. Regardless, if business and industry lobbyists are allowed to buy legislation to criminalise an innovative economic model, then every taxpayer, every consumer, every customer that uses this new system becomes a criminal. I almost welcome the attempt to enforce the proposed laws - millions of people choosing not to pay fines or otherwise comply with the law. The Brits had trouble with Ghandi's nonviolent movement. Who wants to bet the **AAs will have trouble enforcing this attack on their clients? Millions of people standing up for their rights. Millions of "criminals" - can you really fine, prosecute, and arrest them all?
Tune in next time, when I look at the news/information/advertising industry.
As usual, comments are welcome.
Cheers,
Lord Helmet.
Note: The author does not in fact condone the vigilante execution of democracy hijackers without a trial. Any such vigilantes will be rounded up and shot.
Sometimes I've gotta wonder. What does it take for industry to notice a need for change? SCO et al are messing around with the regulation of Intellectual Property, without even bothering to properly define it. The entertainment industry is dancing to the same music, in the key of copyright. The pharmaceutical industry builds up patents for naturally-occurring and synthetic chemicals to peddle to doctors seeking clients. What I understand is the need to finance future research and development. But then greed sets in and prohibitive costs pop their ugly little heads up and before you can blink, whammo there's a black market operating at discount prices. Oh, and before I move on let's not forget government's fundraising efforts through taxes, fees, and outright bribery.
Now, it's no question that theft (the ultimate discount) is illegal and anticapitalist. Open source activists can be compared to communist idealists since they advocate, in simplicity, the belief that information is common property and available to all. For the most part, governments operate as open source mechanisms, if you have the patience to read all the legislation and amendments, and the understanding to wade through the undocumented code that is the civil service. The downer is that this organisation that represents Joe and Mary Sixpack is allegedly run in their interests by those gifted with the ability to run it. Then that little word called "revenue" enters in.
Corporations, at least, are honest about existing solely for the cause of profit. Governments, supposedly exist in the middle ground between corporation and non-profit societies. This could be seen as moderation between extremes, and such a thing generally works, right? Why all the griping? It probably has something to do with John Q Public not liking his tax dollars getting wasted and the government getting co-opted by the corporations. So what does John do?
He sees banks making record profits. He sees entertainers and athletes making boatloads of cash that he ultimately contributes to. He sees ads for prescription drugs on the American channels from huge drug companies and he hears unceasing, unrefundable excretia flow from the **AAs while prices for all of the above skyrocket and his neighbour's job gets downsized/outsourced. Where's the balance?
If industry were to get its way everybody would pay full ticket price for everything, every time. Without restraint, this is not sustainable - if it were there'd be no file sharing, freeloading, or theft. If government were to get its way, the highest bidder would win the favourable policies and the taxpayer would subsidise the expenses associated (but of course this is purely hypothetical! *cough*Bombardier/Halliburton*/cough*). But then there's the consumers. As far as numbers go, they're pretty darn superior. They happen to (theoretically) OWN the government and control it's operation. They've got their own economy going right now and it's got the higher-ups tearing their hair out. Government is supposed to be, among other things, the mediating body between consumers/taxpayers and industries/big business. And yet government is trying to meddle in a fledgling new economy where people pay affordable, fair prices for what they like, and they lose what they don't like. What's the problem here? What we need is separation of church and state & BUSINESS! Round up the lobbyists, be they special interest groups or thinly veiled industry or corporate bribery, and SHOOT THEM ON SIGHT! Why should business be able to declare that a fair market economy such as the one that is developing now is illegal?
Government is by the people, for the people. Business and free enterprise are a side effect of our economic system, not a foundation of government. Sure they provide jobs and money for the economy - but we'd get by without them with an alternative structure. Regardless, if business and industry lobbyists are allowed to buy legislation to criminalise an innovative economic model, then every taxpayer, every consumer, every customer that uses this new system becomes a criminal. I almost welcome the attempt to enforce the proposed laws - millions of people choosing not to pay fines or otherwise comply with the law. The Brits had trouble with Ghandi's nonviolent movement. Who wants to bet the **AAs will have trouble enforcing this attack on their clients? Millions of people standing up for their rights. Millions of "criminals" - can you really fine, prosecute, and arrest them all?
Tune in next time, when I look at the news/information/advertising industry.
As usual, comments are welcome.
Cheers,
Lord Helmet.
Note: The author does not in fact condone the vigilante execution of democracy hijackers without a trial. Any such vigilantes will be rounded up and shot.
But Can You Arrest Them All? More Login
But Can You Arrest Them All?
Slashdot Top Deals