While trekkies certain hold a lot of ground in our society, I really wish there would be more movies about Arthur C. Clarke. They are already working on Rama, but where are 2061 and 3001? You talk about a utopian society, pick up 3001 sometime and see just how crazy and far humanity could go as far as intellectual property is concerned. I sort of like the idea of being able to wake up, put on a braincap, and see the latest images of Neptune in my mind. --- 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. > > 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 > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs --------------------------------------------------- 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