The basic problem facing corporate content providers is that that the business model of institutions of public mind control is failing.

The market for premium content is insignificant in economic terms, to start with. This is from the Against Monopoly Blog:

According to the RIAA, the value of all CD's, live presentations, music videos, dvds in 1998 (from http://www.riaa.com/pdf/md_riaa10yr.pdf) was 13.72 billion US$.

According to the SOI, in 1998 the business receipts of the computer and electronic product manufacturing including both hardware and software (they do not divide it further) was 560.27 billion US$. This of course excludes the value of all the data stored on computers.

Even if one includes newspaper content, the numbers are economically insignificant, and declining. The numbers for IT were shown for comparison, and they are what economists would consider economically significant.

As long as content providers could profitably continue to set the agenda, filter information, and control the distribution of concerns, there was no problem. But now their business model is failing, as the internet attempts to route around the corporate control of the mind.

The imminent death of Internet radio has led me to think of ways of modifying the Creative Commons share and share-alike non-commercial license. I wish to release some music I have composed, but before I do this, I would like to craft a variant of the creative commons licence under which SoundExchange, the RIAA and their legal representatives would be subject to a $10,000,000 fine if they listen to my music, create derivative works based on it, or if they attempt enforce my rights under the copyright act.

Specifically, the license I would like should impose a crippling fine on SoundExchange in case it attempts to collect royalties on my behalf paid by services making ephemeral phonorecords or digital audio transmissions of sound recordings, or both, under the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. 112 and 17 U.S.C. 114 or if it attempts to distribute the collected royalties to me pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 114(g)(2). The license should go beyond merely threatening the possibilityof a lawsuit--it should stipulate an RIAA-level fine against SoundExchange and its legal representatives.

If such a license could be crafted with sufficient care, and if sufficiently many musicians were to release music under this license, in time it could effectively criminalize SoundExchange, the RIAA and its lawyers.

Charging stem-cell opponents a premium for stem-cell related therapy, should they acquire a disease that requires stem cells for its treatment, is an alternative to denying them treatment outright.

Abortion is another issue that would be designated a bimodal issue under the system of bimodal politics. If you vote against abortion, your tax dollars will not be used to support state-sponsored family planning programs or sex education, and you will be legally barred from having an abortion if you are female. If you are male and you impregnate a woman who has an abortion, and you voted against abortion, you will be held legally liable.

In either case, if you voted against abortion and your fetus or your partner's fetus is aborted, you will be prosecuted by the state. However, if you voted in favor of abortion, your fetus can be aborted, and your tax dollars may go to support state-sponsored family planning programs and sex education.

These examples illustrate the slogan that under Bimodal Politics, you live in the world you voted for.

I wish to propose an approach to political controversies that I call Bimodal Politics. Technology could be used to manage controversial political issues, for which the distribution of voters is bimodal and for which there is essentially no middle ground.

Such issues include stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage. Through the system of bimodal politics, voters would live in parallel legal and political worlds, with different rights and obligations to the state depending on how they voted

In outline, a national database is maintained of voter preference on controversial issues that are designated bimodal issues. Your vote is recorded by the bimodal voter database. Your vote determines your rights and obligations to the state on that particular issue in parallel with those voters who voted oppositely, and who may have (and probably have) different rights and obligations under the state.

Consider stem cell research. Under the proposed system, stem cell research would be designated a bimodal issue. During an election, your vote on stem cell research would be entered into the database. If you voted in favor of stem cell research, you may be taxed to support it, your embryos may be harvested for stem cells (these may be from embryos slated for destruction in any case) and if you develop a disease that requires stem cell derived therapy for its treatment, you will be eligible for it.

If you voted against stem cell research, you will not be taxed to support it, your embryos will not be harvested for stem cells and if you develop a disease you will be prohibited from pursuing treatments derived from stem cell research.