The Privatization Of Our Culture

[A.J.]

Wow normally I don't make threads like this or post articles like this but this is differnt. I'm not going to write a 3000 word essay building this one up or tearing it down. I have my own beliefs and ideas about this, but since I am the first post I will not submit them as to not scare someone with an idea but little backbone. So please go ahead and read the *entire* essay. I think you will be glad you did. Without further adu:

http://shift.com/content/10.1/50/1.html






(rawkus, hexrei, zupan, mike s, and roddimus I'm expecting you to post in this thread and do a good job stating your point of view. But lets keep the faming to a minimal. I would like "non regular bitchers" to get involved too, thanks I knew you would understand"

[Tecknowledgy]

A friend and I were sitting on my couch yesterday having a conversation similar to this topic. We had come to the conclusion that nothing is ours anymore, and that everything we have been told up to now has been a big lie.

Our parents, from an early age, lie to us and give us false hope and false belief in a world that is nothing like what we are being told. False hope in the forms of Easter and Christmas and other holidays. Santa is here to keep an eye on us, so we behave. The toothfairy gives us money if we put our lost teeth under our pillows, so we do, and the easter bunny comes one good day out of the year to bring the children chocolate eggs, which we all know are the reasons we even carry on with our lives. Right?

The school systems teach us history, and english, and math, and science. Then when school is over with you see that what you really needed was not the math nor the english nor the science, rather the "preparation for life 101" classes that oddly enough, you did not see offered as an elective that term.

The ideas we have instilled in us from an early age are wholly half-truths, or partially lies. We are told that we can be anything we want to be, unless of course you want to be a surgeon, or a doctor, or an astronaut, or a Navy S.E.A.L. I think what they really meant to tell us is that we can be anything we want to be, as long as it's middle class, struggling, and able to lie about and undermine the things that scare us.

C'mon, do it for the kids.

[/non-important rant]

[The_waterMAN]

All it took was two planes knocking over the WTC for a majority of the nation to realize that real life really isn't that lovely...

American ignorance at it's finest.

[Vixie]

i've had an opinion similar to that for years. But yeah, the article points it out better than I could have, definitely.

[Mike S]

You wrote that AJ? Its very well written - great job! I've got to get to work but on my break i'll pop back in a give my 2 cents.

Mike

Originally posted by A.J.
Wow normally I don't make threads like this or post articles like this but this is differnt. I'm not going to write a 3000 word essay building this one up or tearing it down. I have my own beliefs and ideas about this, but since I am the first post I will not submit them as to not scare someone with an idea but little backbone. So please go ahead and read the *entire* essay. I think you will be glad you did. Without further adu:

http://shift.com/content/10.1/50/1.html






(rawkus, hexrei, zupan, mike s, and roddimus I'm expecting you to post in this thread and do a good job stating your point of view. But lets keep the faming to a minimal. I would like "non regular bitchers" to get involved too, thanks I knew you would understand"

[TeknoAXE]

I say that you have the choice to forego mainstream bullshit and make up your own stories and fables and whatnot. No one says you have to use tellitubbies or batman as your culture icons even though everyone else does. If the coorperations own this, then fuckit! They probably ruined the stories anywayz.

AXE

[Boyd Main]

What are we really talking about here? We are talking about an industry, or a collection of industries, that produces and sells something called content. Here are some examples of content:

1. Seinfeld
2. Windows XP
3. Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus
4. Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
5. “Sweet Caroline,” by Neil Diamond

In other words, songs, movies, TV shows, software and all that.

Uuugh. I can't beleive that the author of that column is worried that those kinds of things are owned by private entities. Let them own them. Let them hold exclusive rights. Let them stop the rest of us from using them as our "cultural lighthouse". Please.

I mean, really, is it such a bad thing that pokemon cannot be used as a teaching tool for first graders? Children are so thoroughly soaked, infused, permeated by popular culture, much of which is not particularly good for them. Any limiting of the influence of these cultural signposts sounds like a good idea to me.

Where was Batman on 9/11? Not on a sound stage in Hollywood. He was no fucking-where cause he's made up! The fact that he is owned privately means squat. God isn't owned privately (although the Catholic church might argue with that point) and (s)he didn't stop the terrorists either.

All in all, a pretty useless read, and I agree with AXE - we can do better for our culture than content someone else has made up and owns.

[booboo69]

It seems to me that as we progress forward in time, the corporate world has become more and more ready and willing to do anything and everything to make money. This could become a scarier prospect than big brother watching over our shoulders.

This should raise several flags when dealing with corporations like Bayer (as mentioned in the article) who have exclusive patents on products that could in certain situations be the difference between life and death. If they really wanted to get the most money out of their product, why don't they start sending out anthrax letters (and who's to say they didn't?).

But we as consumers have the ultimate say. The only reason these corporations have this control is because they've convinced us (very well) that we need whatever they are selling. But until the vast majority of the world realized this, we may want to be just as wary or the corporate world as we are the political world.

Very good article.

[Roddimus]

Anyone remember the contraversy when Sony decided to do a cover of Rolando's "Jaguar?" Because Rolando refused to liscense the song to Sony/BMG, they decided to produce a cover and release it. They promised Rolando some royalties, but he more or less told them to fuck off. For him it was a matter of principle, not money.
For all the championing of intellectual property laws Sony/BMG spews out, when it comes down to stealing someone else's music for profit, corporations like Sony are ten times more underhanded and devious than Napster or Audiogalaxy could ever be.
It's almost as though if you don't want to make fucked up amounts of money in this country, there's something wrong with you.

[MC Junglitachi Magic Wand]

Originally posted by A.J.
(rawkus, hexrei, zupan, mike s, and roddimus I'm expecting you to post in this thread and do a good job stating your point of view.

AND WAHT THE FUCK AM I?????? CHOPED LIVER??????

I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!1

i am byocotting this thread from nwo on.

[Mike S]

My reply at first galnce..

Private ownership is one of the pillars of our society - be it land, materiel or intellectual property. Its one of the things that empowers us.
You as a consumer of someone elses property do not have the right to get it for free or dictate what is the asking price for it. Its not yours. One of the things said in the opening statement was its time to take back what is ours. What did you do to create any of it? Explain to me how any of that is yours and that you are entitled to it. Youre not. And to expand on something booboo said about corporations doing what ever they can to make money - Yeah they are. thats their job. And as long as they dont break the law there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Whats your point boobo? Pardon me for going off on a tangent but for some unknown reason this generation( the one coming up under gen x) seems to think they not only dont have to do much to earn their keep in this country, that somehow a job is their right, but are also entitled to that which other people spend time and money creating. You are not.
When villifying bayer for having a monopoly on cipro did you bother to explain how much bayer invested in the developement of cipro and put that in context with their right to be the sole supplier of cipro for a set amount of time in order to recoup their investment before its allowed to be marketted by other manuacturers? Did you bother to explain the problem the drug manufacturing companies in this country have worldwide because other countries socialized systems artificially set the price of drugs below what the actual market price should be so they can save money forcing the American drug companies to offset the losses in one market by raising prices in another. To break it down - the reason Canada or some other socialist country has such cheap drug prices is because you and I subsidize the difference here in the states. I know the concept of setting product profit margins is an alien thought to some of the more progressive/socialist minded people reading this that think profit is bad...but thats how you do business.

You make these high and mighty moralistic accusations and assumptions about the nature of corporations and what goes on in the minds of a corporations directors but in demanding the right to someone elses property for little or no compensation you have little more moral standing than a common theif.
The fact you wish to steal under the facade of "social justice" doesnt make you any less of a theif it just makes you a conniving, manipulative theif. *generalizing when i use the word "you're" not directing it personally.*

Also in demonizing some corporations for what you consider immoral or criminal behavior you impose on them what you consider to be moral or criminal - not in some cases what IS criminal and not in some cases what the rest of us would deem moral. Also your choice of examples of a movement against these corporate actions is questionable. I'm sure in your view these protestors seem to be doing something constructive but if you step back and look at the totality of their actions they have done more to set back the anti-corporate/anti-globalist movement than any conglomerate could hope to. To use a quote from a pro globalization US government official when asked how to react to the protestors- "we dont.. we gladly let them show up and do and say what they do.. and in the end they show the world just what kind of asses they really are" He's right. They have. They arent taken seriously by anybody of substance.



The critique of the substance of your essay being what it may I have to say it was well written, I really enjoyed reading it and if you put a little more effort into using facts to back up some of the rhetorical assertions it will be very convincing to someone reading it and will require the person challenging it to do his/her homework.

Anyway-thats my take after quickly glancing over it at lunch..
Mike

[DJ Rawkus]

hey uhhh abe?

Go sleep it off buddy. :D

If i entrusted intellectual property rights and the megacorporations with my money, then i probably wouldn't have any faith in open source. I mean open source in the general sense, not just software. Open source is the next big step in human evolution and it's going to either divide us as humans or bring us together. The fundemental daily existence of the majority of this planet means making money, and if someone hijacks your means to make money by providing the same service/item/logo for free and possibly done better, it'll probably ruin your day (and money market account). People are either going to evolve out of making money (unlikely) or just get used to the fact that some of us aren't willing to pay for something we think should be free in the first place. Which "things" should be free is where alot of people draw the line. Ex: I get my movies and music over hotline, does that mean im now entitled to walk into the nearest ampm and take what i want? Hey Gatorade and Black n Mild won't mind right? They make billions of dollars, one contribution to my temporary happiness isn't gonna break the bank. [/example. I'm not advocating shoplifiting.] That being said, I think it's high time we just let kids be kids and quit fussing over which icon they choose and who it's owned by. I turned out fine, and look at the icons of the 70's and 80's... :p

[A.J.]

Originally posted by Mike S
You wrote that AJ? Its very well written - great job! I've got to get to work but on my break i'll pop back in a give my 2 cents.

Mike




no no no, I didn't write it. I keep all of my essays in "da vault" or rather on a cd hidden far far away :)

[burnt]

thats a very well-written, concise piece. however, copyright laws and public perceptions really don't intimidate me.

I'm a hacker.
Fuck Sony if they don't want me burning CDs and downloading MP3s.
Fuck their highly paid consultants and developers.
Fuck the global economy that I might be damaging

...if I can take a $0.79 Sharpie and hack 2 years' worth of encryption development that Sony and company have been working on? aw yea....

laws and perceptions don't intimidate me, they feed me. I *know* that every law and perception and social rule of etiquette is feared by the masses. hence, the hacker's power. allovasudden, I can grab a "sharpie" and be the "bad guy". scare the suits, while gettin the ghetto bitches all wet & shit.........so not only do I get free music, *everyone* is scared to call me on it, as a thief. well, outside of real stern letters to the editor.

oh yea, I'm mos'def a thief. I'm thieving media, assets, and artistic intellectual property. but that's THE BEAUTY OF IT! I can do this shit, and *everyone*.........for their own demographic or cultural purposes.......is scared to attack me for it.

"normal", non-techie people fear the practice, because they know I'm breaking corporate copyright law. they shy away. the technology stays "underground", even though everyone knows how the technology works. the "users" fear repercussions. therefore the public will only use the "quicky" hacks........you know........the shortcut apps that me and my homies are developing for the public. the public isn't going to have the nads to create their own upgrades on the hack.

Sony and company fears me, because if they go after some goddam raver in a beatup apartment, for dubbing muzak..........well, they're gonna look like a bunch of goddam bullies. they fear the bad PR.

and to be honest..................my truth is a truth that has been totally avoided by the media. because its not really "proveable" as a truth. too many facts and ethics get in the way. but still, because its debatable, and still a question....or a misgiving....or you know, not being 100% sure.....its grey......therefore applicable to *any* environment or culture.

the truth is that both facts and perceptions, in Western culture, are bogus. and contradictory. and therefore totally, completely hack-able. (i.e. - the standard old debate used by Athiests that "God lets bad things happen to good people" to sway persons to atheism).

sorry kids, debate the facts and debate the ethics, but us skinny white boys that got forced to the back of the bus with all the stepped-on, shady-behavin minorities....have got these truths figured out.

- nobody in the FBI went out of their way to create 9/11
- nobody in the FBI went out of their way to stop 9/11
- today, whether because of a belief of potential conspiracy, or a belief of ineptitude, the FBI is under scrutinization.
- if the FBI proves that they *did* have foresight of 9/11, they are perceived as being part of the problem. or at least, non-responsive.
- if the FBI proves that they had *no* foresight of 9/11.........well, we've all seen the reports that were forwarded to FBI headquarters. if the FBI proves this, they look inept.
- the FBI is a strong organization with deep ties to our culture. they have a proven history, and truly are serving the public's best interests.
- currently, the public perception of the FBI is quite the opposite.

*******
so it goes with all of these corporations' intent to control artistic and intellectual properties within our culture.

- fact. you can't just grab a sharpie, and magically have the skills to hack many years' worth of research and development.
- fact. if I show the Sharpie trick to enough morons, they might believe that they actually *do* have these skills.
- fact. these morons, fresh out of their shells and drunk with the belief that they can "take over the world" envision themselves as hackers.
- fact. the belief/confidence in themselves, can often actually *make* hackers out of them. look no further than MafiaBoy for an example of this little exploit/truth.

******
and there's a great comfort in those truths. its like........Fuck Microsoft and their plans to migrate everyone to XP. If XP like, totally fails because a bajillion script kiddies spam the fuck out it, and they're getting sued by the D.O.J., and Linux is free and looks and smells pretty much exactly like WindowsXP...........

- then it doesn't matter if XP was originally designed to work better with most websites and softwares
- it doesn't matter if Microsoft is simply trying to standardize computing, to allow faster global transmission of data among a uniform means of data transportation
- it doesn't matter if Microsoft has some better O.S. in the hopper, for their next release.......

the facts don't matter. people want convenience. people want it *now*. and if a corporation is too busy tied up in litigations and patenting intellectual properties....well, they're gonna miss the next innovation. that someone else comes up with.

and I'd say its been proven, that the public likes the innovation over the legality. at least, the American public.

Napster, for instance, came out. it was cool. everyone was all over napster. RIAA meanwhile began researching and researching and researching...........and finally made a good fucking legal point....

just about the time that some fucking hacker decided that Napster was lame. too slow, too many junior highers with dialups on the damned thing. y'all know what I'm sayin here, right?

enter audiogalaxy, stage left. and now that they're gone too? well, fuck. now I've burned pirated mp3 software. yea...and so have millions of other wannabe hackers just like me. whats next? who knows. but something *is* next.

MP3's ain't going nowhere.
neither is hacking.
neither are goddam hackers who use conflicting "facts" and "perceptions" to manipuate the public, into their following their own goals.

*****
I wouldn't sweat the future. use the "4-year-olds birthday party" as an example. I mean, when *my* little 4 year old saw the 9/11 footage at my house (about 3 days after 9/11), he says to me "hey..............my mama has that movie at her house, too!"

because I love him....I set him straight. kindly. slowly. with love, and progress in mind. but had I wanted to hack him?????????....well.....look at that sweet naive statement that my little boy made. the kid was ripe for the picking. I could've made a terrorist or a S.E.A.L. on the fucking spot, I know it. I didn't because I love him...................but the hacker in me immediately acknowledged that truth.

so it goes with all of the - well - *coughs* - erm........."non-hackers". yea, they stumble into my life, and say, "you know, my computer seemed to be freezing up or something." or, "do you know of any websites that will let me download MP3's now that Audiogalaxy is down?"

=)
then I drop knowledge about pirated audio softwares, and thin clients, and legal patents and Echelon.....right on some stranger on the bus, because I just don't give a fuck like that...next thing you know, Echelon ain't working so good. Or some porn site has mutated the damn thing.

so don't worry about it.
private ownership, be it corporate or - well, truly private - is still............ultimately............in the hands of a few! and myself, and every other hackers out there, can still hack a *few* heads...........

so fuck Sony and their ultra-high tech unburnable CDs
and fuck the half dozen or so geniuses that scripted it

because ultimately, it was just a half dozen coders....and a half dozen lawyers......and a half dozen Sony execs in the way. fuck em if they can't take a joke. I got my sharpie.

*****
so it goes with our futures as well. you wanna sew up a batman costume? fuck it. sew it up. sell it. the future's yours.

and you'll probably hear some guff from the original writers of the Batman comics. and you'll probably hear some shit from DC comics. and you'll probably hear some more shit from Warner Brothers.

but check *this* little hacker secret out................

if you make a really, really good fuckin point about why you should be allowed to sew your Batman costume, to the original creator of Batman...

then you make a *different* good point to DC Comics.....

then you make *another* good point to Warner Bros.....

well, its an old school hack indeed. take all of your strongest adversaries, get em good and pissed off, then sic' em on each other.

and keep sewing your Batman costumes. you'll be cited by *all* your adversaries as a good example of an uncontrolled situation gone bad. nothing more, nothing less.....

meantime, you're still sewing. and I'm still downloading what I wanna hear, when i wanna hear it.

fnord.

[MC Junglitachi Magic Wand]

I just realized Distortion wasn't listed on the list of favored politicos either, and having had a two-hour nap and an enjoyable evening with my girl I think I will end the boycott.

Here's the way I see it - there's three ways to regulate (or not regulate) culture.

1. No compensation
This is simple, really. People who produce media, etc, do so because they love it, and don't get money. Everything goes around free. The only problem is, this relegates everyone to producing things in their spare time, since they need a way to make money. If you're doing something that requires the immense skill of matching two records and moving a crossfader 60mm, this doesn't make any difference. If you're producing an entire song, however, the difference between spending a whole week in the studio and putting in a few hours on Thursday night is going to make a huge difference in the quality of product put out. Therefore, people need compensation by someone...

2. Governmental compensation
This will work real well. Do you think the government controls things now? Let's let them own the property rights and see if they're fair. At least right now, the RIAA actually has to debate blocking MP3 access.

3. Privatization
Good product without the government controlling it. But there is a problem with privatization that is why the "corporate culture" irks so many people, especially artsy and lefty types. I'm going to split this into two posts since that's kind a different tangent.

[MC Junglitachi Magic Wand]

Let's look at another (albeit somewhat heavily-regulated) group of companies; American railroads.

Once upon a time, we all had regional railroads. Here in the Northwest the Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Milwaukee Road, Spokane Portland and Seattle, Union Pacific, Soutern Pacific, and Oregon Electric all plied the rails.

Fast forward in time to 2002 and now everything is controlled by BNSF or UP. But wait, it isn't. As the railroad corporations get bigger, they abandon the smaller, less-profitable lines. Big companies stick to the big money, so BNSF runs trains between places like Portland and Seattle and UP runs them east to Salt Lake City. But all the smaller stuff gets sold off.

The NP used to own every piece of track in the puget sound. Now we have Tacoma Rail, the Chehalis Western, Ballard Terminal, Boeing, and other shortlines running all over the place. Down in Portland you've got the POrtland Western, the Willamette and Pacific, and the Tillamook Terminal running all the shortlines.

so how does this apply to music?

Simple. Bigger corporations go where the big money is. In music, that's the stuff that will appeal to the most number of people. Columbia Records has no interest in marketing a bunch of Drum'N'Bass because Junglists are like a small percentage of Electronic music fans who are a small percentage to begin with. So they go for the big guys.

Economics dictates that the biggest corporations are going to be responsible for things like Britney Spears and Linkin Park. Since the big companies have no interest in mediocre profits, this leaves indie rock, most electronic, and a ton of other small genres for small record labels - just like huge railroads leave the shortlines for others.

The downside to this: "corporate culture" is the lowest common denominator, and therefore seems 'lesser' to anyone who likes a fringe culture. I mean, how many people on this board would debate the Christina Aguilera is more talented than Dieselboy? Didn't think so. But who sold more records?

A quick response to that is that Christina was "marketed" to people, and people will grab up anything that is "marketed" to them. Yeah, she was marketed. You could market "druqs" with a 7 billion dollar advertising campaign, you still wouldn't get the average 17-year old boy or 13-year old girl to wanna listen to a bunch of IDM. It's not happening.

"Corporate culture" is puerile. Therefore, many lefties and fringe culture-members blame the corporations for the puerality. In reality, the puerality stems from "corporate culture" being "lowest common denominator" culture.

You disagree? Ask yourself this. How many 15-year-old girls with Linkin Park lyrics posted on their TeenOpenDiary journals bemoan "corporate culture"? How many 20-year-old guys who think Puff Daddy is the shit complain about it? Not many. And Puff Daddy is selling a lot more records than the Coup.

Let's face it, the indictment of "corporate culture" is only ever made by people who don't like it. It is a value judgement, plain and simple. My brother will stick to his whiny Emo-rock and say my DnB is repetetive garbage; I'll stick to my Total Science and bemoan the fact that we live in a world where Dashboard Confessional can sell records; my 10-year-old cousin Heather can get the latest boy band CD and tell us how we both listen to crappy music, and we can laugh at her. But when we take the fact that we don't like the product she consumes as much and try to vilify the producer instead of realizing we have seperate tastes, we are making a value judgement that our culture is better than hers.

"Corporate culture" is only dissed by those who don't consume it.

[DJ Rawkus]

Originally posted by burnt
sorry kids, debate the facts and debate the ethics, but us skinny white boys that got forced to the back of the bus with all the stepped-on, shady-behavin minorities....have got these truths figured out. Almost put that in my tagfile..haha! I love it!


so it goes with all of the - well - *coughs* - erm........."non-hackers". yea, they stumble into my life, and say, "you know, my computer seemed to be freezing up or something." or, "do you know of any websites that will let me download MP3's now that Audiogalaxy is down?"

=)
then I drop knowledge about pirated audio softwares, and thin clients, and legal patents and Echelon.....right on some stranger on the bus, because I just don't give a fuck like that...next thing you know, Echelon ain't working so good. Or some porn site has mutated the damn thing. I sang approximately the same tune in this (http://nwtekno.org/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39436&perpage=20&highlight=dumb&pagenumber=2)thread and got called dumb... Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
It's seems blatantly aware to me that if you go tell your neighbor something , chances are that the whole 'hood will know within hours. Yes, there was once a time when all of these things were considered underground, but common knowledge destroys that. I also think it's funny when you put in the idiots who think NAF is underground and the black market is a shopping mall for the smart buyer. Then you've got the people who think underground=illegal activity. *cough* Not everything underground is illegal, but it CAN be, and usually is. BUT I think the people that partake in such activity also know that "the more the merrier" does not always apply in every environment.

but check *this* little hacker secret out................

well, its an old school hack indeed. take all of your strongest adversaries, get em good and pissed off, then sic' em on each other.

and keep sewing your Batman costumes. you'll be cited by *all* your adversaries as a good example of an uncontrolled situation gone bad. nothing more, nothing less.....

meantime, you're still sewing. and I'm still downloading what I wanna hear, when i wanna hear it.

fnord. I agree with you 110% burnt. I've seen it happen for over 10 years now. :(

[burnt]

I sang approximately the same tune in this thread and got called dumb...

well, no offense brudda, but it *was* kinda dumb =)

which is cool, I mean, I'm a big dummy myself. but its like I keep telling these stupid intellects that I run around with.....

...say I make a point, via a passionate speech. a useless, dumb, nonsensical point which would actually do more damage than good, if implemented. I toss in a few blatantly wrong statistics, but mostly its on-key. but there's gotta be a lotta passion!

m'kay.....up steps the intellects.

"you're wrong, because of this...and this....plus, this contrasts this!", one of em says.
"not to mention that, and the other thing!", another of em says.
"ah, but what about the onetime thing?", retorts the first.
"regardless, its still......."

yadda, yadda, yadda.......yea, its all facts, and its a straight A dissertation and shit....but its fuckin boring.

so all the morons and AOL users and such.....that heard the original speech...and see all the fuss over the speech...pretty much only retain what I said.

its all about showmanship, or perception.

*these* are how ideas are implemented into a society.
******
ah, but there's a catch! the intellects and their straight A papers, they're down with the lawmakers, the authorities, the other intellects. so eventually, a good enough point is made, and - laws or ideals or ethics are put into place, to ensure that the public remember that my original point was "bad."
*****
not like anyone's gonna quit or anything......but it's "bad, m'kay?"
...and there's your "underground".
I think that's the point that you and AJ were trying to make.
at least, that's *my* perception of your point... =)
***
yea, I'd say that masturbation is probably the most underground thing going on today.

[DJ Rawkus]

*nods* I guess if some people can't get past the facts, they'll never see the passion...and vice versa. Just like with this privatization. Let the bigwigs argue in court and take each other out. Meanwhile, us "hacks" run their corporate networks and in a sense run the world. They have the money, we have the power. They'll never be able to get past the green clouding their eyes to understand that...

Hmmn. I wonder what Kevin Mitnick is up to right now and what he thinks about this? :confused:

[podge]

The U.S. is not a born culture, we take mostly from others

[Mike S]

Originally posted by podge
The U.S. is not a born culture, we take mostly from others

Oh really? If you mean that in the sense that our culture is made up of the many cultures that move here then sure I'd agree.. but what modern culture isnt?
Also I can honestly say there is absolutely nothing about me that has anything to do with my Irish ancestory. I'm American. My culture and backround is American. I have no loyalty to any other group other than other Americans. So.. explain to me how i am not the product of an American culture?

I would submit that your thinking might be applicable to 18th century America - certainly not 21st century America

MS

[Justin]

The phenonina of mp3 swapping demonstrates the failings of the free-market economy.

The most elemental, philosophical basis of the free market economy is, ironically, identical to the elemental, philosophical basic of communism -- the idea that people are rational beings, and will act rationally to fulfil their own self-interest.

Communism took this to mean that everyone should work together, everyone sacrificing for the common good, which in turn benifits everyone. A rising tide raises all boats, if you will. What a great idea, right! What could be wrong with communism?

Everyone, all together now!

(The voices of know-it-all middle schoolers across the nation unite: )

"Communism is a great idea, but it just doesn't work."

It doesn't work because people are not rational beings. Not exclusively. Communisms failure to tame human passions, human greed, and human rivalries became eminently clear with the rise of Stalin, and after the crackdown on unions in Prague, 1968, even the most pie-in-the-sky communists had to concede something was terribly wrong. Orwell 1, London Trotskyest Society 0.

Libertarians are more realistic than the communists. They realize that everyone working for their own self interest is not as realistic as everyone working on their own, forming and breaking alliances as the individual sees fit. Another big plus to libertarians is they don't go around advocating mass murder of dissedent classes. Can't argue with that. However, there are still some big flaws with their philosophy.

The expanded version of libertarian philosophy is this:

People are rational beings. Thus, the best governer for their actions is enlightened self interest, in which people produce goods and services and market these services to the best of their ability. (There's also some stuff about government regulation, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.)

Sounds great, right? Well, it is, in a way. Sort of like how the Bible is good in a way. However, just like with the Bible, it can be taken way too far.

[Justin]

(continued)

Most people who are into the Bible come away either believing in love or believing in a vengeful diety watching their every move. That's all well and good, and does not impede the rest of one's life too much. Some people, though, come away from the Bible thinking that the Earth was created 4,600 odd years ago, Clinton is the antichrist, evolution is some form of propoganda, and women shouldn't have the right to vote.

With libertarian philosophy, some people take it way too far by saying everything everyone produces is a product to be bartered on the market. Everything.

Needless to say, this includes art. Yes folks, get used to it. The wizened powers that be have decided that artwork is just like the cheesecake in the bakers window. You see it, you like it, you pay the appropriate controlling entity for it, and you consume it.

Consume. [kon-soom] v.
1) To destroy completely
2) To destroy by fire

Of course, people aren't buying it (pun not intended). People know bullshit when they hear it. Millions of people, few of whom shoplift and none of whom would think stealing someone's car is right, are "stealing" music without the slightest pang of conscience.

Art is not a commodity to be cynically bought, grasped onto while value is gained and dumped when the value has peaked. The concept of art being a commodity may make sense in an abstract, everyone's in it for themselves sort-of-way, but it just doesn't jive with the flow of human intuition. Unfortunately for the free-market evangelists, human intution isn't easy to trump with some simple "ism."

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by A.J.
Wow normally I don't make threads like this or post articles like this but this is differnt. I'm not going to write a 3000 word essay building this one up or tearing it down. I have my own beliefs and ideas about this, but since I am the first post I will not submit them as to not scare someone with an idea but little backbone. So please go ahead and read the *entire* essay. I think you will be glad you did. Without further adu:

http://shift.com/content/10.1/50/1.html

(rawkus, hexrei, zupan, mike s, and roddimus I'm expecting you to post in this thread and do a good job stating your point of view. But lets keep the faming to a minimal. I would like "non regular bitchers" to get involved too, thanks I knew you would understand"


Excellent article. A.J. correct me if I am wrong but this guy isn't saying that the copyright laws are all bad right? He didn't touch upon how the copyright law does protect allot of people. Anyways, I was thinking this article was going to lead into becuase few abuse the system we need to end capitalism type of rhetoric from the left. But it didn't the guy ended his piece with the consumer needs to realize for themselves to swing "the pendulum " back their way to influence policy. The consumer needs to wake up and realize brand names are not important. All though I disagree with this guy's notion that these coporations shouldn't be able to trademark batman and robin, I disagree. We don't own them! Period. If a miracle drug came out tomorrow to cure cancer and the drug company invested in and spent 15 years developing they earn the right to own the patent on it. If we throw that right out then you can kiss our wonderfull drug research hotbeds away for good. Which will happn when the day comes that we become a 100% socialist country.

A.J. Awesome article..

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Roddimus
Anyone remember the contraversy when Sony decided to do a cover of Rolando's "Jaguar?" Because Rolando refused to liscense the song to Sony/BMG, they decided to produce a cover and release it. They promised Rolando some royalties, but he more or less told them to fuck off. For him it was a matter of principle, not money.
For all the championing of intellectual property laws Sony/BMG spews out, when it comes down to stealing someone else's music for profit, corporations like Sony are ten times more underhanded and devious than Napster or Audiogalaxy could ever be.
It's almost as though if you don't want to make fucked up amounts of money in this country, there's something wrong with you.

Nice try to equivaquate the two. All though I agree 100% your trying to compare two totally different cases.

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by MC Kokanee


AND WAHT THE FUCK AM I?????? CHOPED LIVER??????

I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!1

i am byocotting this thread from nwo on.

MC!! Hey bro.. you only have over 130 posts so untill you speak your mind more your not part of the big boys yet. <G> Just kiddin ;)

What did you think of the article?

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by burnt
...if I can take a $0.79 Sharpie and hack 2 years' worth of encryption development that Sony and company have been working on? aw yea....


Carefull now.. "Sharpie" is copyrighted to Newell Rubbermaid company. <G>

I wouldn't be suprised if Sony made some type of motion towards Newell Rubbermaid to change the chemical makeup and compound of their permenant markers from covering their copy protection cd's. <G>

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
The phenonina of mp3 swapping demonstrates the failings of the free-market economy.

The most elemental, philosophical basis of the free market economy is, ironically, identical to the elemental, philosophical basic of communism -- the idea that people are rational beings, and will act rationally to fulfil their own self-interest.

Communism took this to mean that everyone should work together, everyone sacrificing for the common good, which in turn benifits everyone. A rising tide raises all boats, if you will. What a great idea, right! What could be wrong with communism?

Everyone, all together now!

(The voices of know-it-all middle schoolers across the nation unite: )

"Communism is a great idea, but it just doesn't work."

It doesn't work because people are not rational beings. Not exclusively. Communisms failure to tame human passions, human greed, and human rivalries became eminently clear with the rise of Stalin, and after the crackdown on unions in Prague, 1968, even the most pie-in-the-sky communists had to concede something was terribly wrong. Orwell 1, London Trotskyest Society 0.

No, Communism fails because it has to totally ignore and refuse the fact that you are an individual.

Doc, it’s unfortunate you reason freedom as greedy or selfish. Because most humans recognize that we are a single person, and should not be forced to forfeit all possible means of accomplishing our complete full potential than we are irrational?

Check this letter Ayn Rand wrote to a fellow countryman.

http://aard.org/indigo/rand.txt

Libertarians are more realistic than the communists. They realize that everyone working for their own self interest is not as realistic as everyone working on their own, forming and breaking alliances as the individual sees fit. Another big plus to libertarians is they don't go around advocating mass murder of dissedent classes. Can't argue with that. However, there are still some big flaws with their philosophy.

The expanded version of libertarian philosophy is this:

People are rational beings. Thus, the best governer for their actions is enlightened self interest, in which people produce goods and services and market these services to the best of their ability. (There's also some stuff about government regulation, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.)

Sounds great, right? Well, it is, in a way. Sort of like how the Bible is good in a way. However, just like with the Bible, it can be taken way too far.

Doc let me explain more of the Libertarian philosophy. I think your missing some key things. Many Libertarians tend to fall under the philosophy of Objectivism by Ayn Rand which is summed quickly as.

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
(continued)

Most people who are into the Bible come away either believing in love or believing in a vengeful diety watching their every move. That's all well and good, and does not impede the rest of one's life too much. Some people, though, come away from the Bible thinking that the Earth was created 4,600 odd years ago, Clinton is the antichrist, evolution is some form of propoganda, and women shouldn't have the right to vote.

Yeah and our founding fathers came away from the bible creating a country with a set of values, princiaples, foundation, etc etc that had led to the most successfull civilization known to this world ever! <G>

With libertarian philosophy, some people take it way too far by saying everything everyone produces is a product to be bartered on the market. Everything.

Who takes it to far? The philosphy doesn't even hint at the idea so if people have said this or done so, it wasn't a Libertarian philosphy that made it so. <G>

Needless to say, this includes art. Yes folks, get used to it. The wizened powers that be have decided that artwork is just like the cheesecake in the bakers window. You see it, you like it, you pay the appropriate controlling entity for it, and you consume it.

Sure is, if I put the time and effort into creating the art I have every right to sell it to any person who likes my WORK.

:)

Consume. [kon-soom] v.
1) To destroy completely
2) To destroy by fire

Doc shame on you!!! That is totally dishonest of you. Trying to use the definition by using the ones that are defined outside of economics.

Why did you leave this out?

Consume: to utilize economic goods

And utilize means to make use of : turn to practical use or account.

Shame on you Doc, this is what the left does all the time please don't resort to these tactics.

Of course, people aren't buying it (pun not intended). People know bullshit when they hear it. Millions of people, few of whom shoplift and none of whom would think stealing someone's car is right, are "stealing" music without the slightest pang of conscience.

Doc, if people could figure out a way to steal something and get away with it of course there conscience escapes them more easily.

Art is not a commodity to be cynically bought, grasped onto while value is gained and dumped when the value has peaked. The concept of art being a commodity may make sense in an abstract, everyone's in it for themselves sort-of-way, but it just doesn't jive with the flow of human intuition. Unfortunately for the free-market evangelists, human intution isn't easy to trump with some simple "ism."

Than explain why it's not. I am interested to know. Don't just say it isn't without backing it up.

-Jason

[HexRei]

Zupie wrote:

Or our founding fathers come away from the bible creating a country with a set of values, princiaples, foundation, etc etc that had made the most successfull civilization known to this world ever!

BZZZZT. Wrong. Founding fathers were not christians. Do I have to set you straight on this AGAIN? (http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm)
I mean really, lying to support your argument is a rather poor tactic, Zupan.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei
Zupie wrote:



BZZZZT. Wrong. Founding fathers were not christians. Do I have to set you straight on this AGAIN? (http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm)
I mean really, lying to support your argument is a rather poor tactic, Zupan.

Hex, nice try though..

[HexRei]

uh, i think you forgot to put a rebuttal into that reply...
if you click my link you'll notice a nice bigpage full of quotes that provide some good evidence the FF's were in fact NOT christians.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei
uh, i think you forgot to put a rebuttal into that reply...
if you click my link you'll notice a nice bigpage full of quotes that provide some good evidence the FF's were in fact NOT christians.

I've read them all before Hex, maybe you should read more than just athiests sites, and pagan worships, etc..

We know they were belivers in GOD and not religion.

[Justin]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Than explain why it's not. I am interested to know. Don't just say it isn't without backing it up.

-Jason

The failings of libertarianism, like the failings of every other one-size-fits-all philosophy, is that it attempts to change human perceptions, intuitions, and behaviors rather than adapt to them.

Ask the Catholic church how successful they were at keeping people from fucking. That's about as successful as extreme free marketers will be convincing people that art is a commodity. The forces of the free market may have the law behind it, but that law will be ruthlessly subverted to whatever extent technology will allow.

I don't need to make some long, abstract argument about how art isn't a commodity. Similarly, I don't need to make a long, abstract argument saying kittens are cute, and sunbathing on a lazy day can be fun. People, deep down, know these things are true. Even if free market evangelicals are successful beyond their wildest dreams, and logically everyone aknowledges their points, deep down people will feel intuitively as people naturally feel. See Catholicism / fucking.

Libertarian philosophy makes sense on the surface, and can be a good guide for general policy and individual choices. However, if taken totally literally and applied to everything, it begins to run head on into human intuition. And like Phil Fulder 's singers sang, "You! Can't! Fight What you feeeeellll !"

This isn't just about random university students using a napster successor. How many of you free market djs out there play records that explicitly say "Not to be broadcast or used in public performance without written permission?"

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


I've read them all before Hex, maybe you should read more than just athiests sites, and pagan worships, etc..

We know they were belivers in GOD and not religion.

In other words, you can't disprove my point. I win.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem


The failings of libertarianism, like the failings of every other one-size-fits-all philosophy, is that it attempts to change human perceptions, intuitions, and behaviors rather than adapt to them.

Hey I'm not saying your wrong. What I am saying is if your going to state why it fails then you need to explain why it does that's all.

Ask the Catholic church how successful they were at keeping people from fucking. That's about as successful as extreme free marketers will be convincing people that art is a commodity. The forces of the free market may have the law behind it, but that law will be ruthlessly subverted to whatever extent technology will allow.

I dunno you tell me. Are you saying that the free market stands in the way of it all? Doc I'm not saying your wrong, I question you becuase you havn't explained why you think so, I'm not going to advocate against what you have said becuase your statement wasn't clear on what a,b, and c did to x,y, and z. that's all. I cannot connect the same dots you have without the background to do so.

I don't need to make some long, abstract argument about how art isn't a commodity. Similarly, I don't need to make a long, abstract argument saying kittens are cute, and sunbathing on a lazy day can be fun. People, deep down, know these things are true. Even if free market evangelicals are successful beyond their wildest dreams, and logically everyone aknowledges their points, deep down people will feel intuitively as people naturally feel. See Catholicism / fucking.

That's the same princiaple many people take. Heck shit loads of people believed the holocaust never happend. These people feel deep down inside that it never happend too. If such a person holds such convictions and wants to prove what they "feel" is true, and the facts are their to back them up, than they should have the nessessary data to back it up.. If not than they have unrationa and unreasonable faith instead. No? Deep down feelings and emotion of an issue over facts, logic and reasoning of the issue doesn't convince me.

Libertarian philosophy makes sense on the surface, and can be a good guide for general policy and individual choices. However, if taken totally literally and applied to everything, it begins to run head on into human intuition. And like Phil Fulder 's singers sang, "You! Can't! Fight What you feeeeellll !"

Even though you havn't explained why it's only good on the surface and if taken literally and applied to everything it runs a head into human intuition, I will agree on subjective basis becuase "You can't fight what you feel" is true. Many people feel strongly that A, B, and C isn't right. But untill that person can explain why A, B, C is not right with facts, logic and reasoning than what we have left instead are those feelings, and emotion that is tied to it. Each individual has their emotions and feelings towards many things, but our feelings differ from individual to individual. So creating policy or stateing things based on emotion only can carry with those of us who have the same feelings or similar emotions. When you can back up your claims with complete objectivity, facts, logic and reasoning feelings fall short everytime.

Let's say you goto to the doctor. Do you want him to diagnose you with cancer on a hunch or a strong feeling, or do you want him to be objective to diagnose you of having cancer which would consist of tests, xrays, etc to find out?

This isn't just about random university students using a napster successor. How many of you free market djs out there play records that explicitly say "Not to be broadcast or used in public performance without written permission?"

No, but if you use their music in a mix to sell and profit from shouldn't you adhere to their wishes? It's their music not yours. How many times a DJ works on a mix CD only to discover the tracks they wanted to use was not able to recieve the nessessary right to use them left the DJ to have to choose something else which they can recieve rights to use I cannot even count how many times that's happend it's so much.

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


In other words, you can't disprove my point. I win.

Hex, yeah you were able to find information that tries to make such a case. But have you backed up those claims from other reliable sources?

Do you stand strong on the facts included on that site? If not, before I point out some, I would advise you double check them.

-Jason

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Hex, yeah you were able to find information that tries to make such a case. But have you backed up those claims from other reliable sources?

Do you stand strong on the facts included on that site? If not, before I point out some, I would advise you double check them.

-Jason

lol. you're so full of bullshit. All the quotes are fully referenced, feel free to try to disprove them- we both know you can't.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


lol. you're so full of bullshit. All the quotes are fully referenced, feel free to try to disprove them- we both know you can't.

Well for starters Treaty of Tripoli. Know anything about it? I guess they are refering to the 11th clause. That is said to have read "

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

When it actually reads this:

If we shall be at War with any Christian Power and any of our Vessels sail from the Ports of the United States, no Vessel belonging to the enemy shall follow untill twenty four hours after the Departure of our Vessels; and the same Regulation shall be observed towards the American Vessels sailing from our Ports.-be their enemies Moors or Christians.

---

Now I wouldn't advocate that America was founded on the christian religion. We were not founded on the religion and it's laws, the founding fathers specifically did not want America, it's people and it's government constrained to the wishes of the church, there for we have a seperation between church and state. The only thing religion did was give a basic princiaple to how they went on approaching the laws of the land.

-Jason

[DJ Rawkus]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


No, but if you use their music in a mix to sell and profit from shouldn't you adhere to their wishes? It's their music not yours. How many times a DJ works on a mix CD only to discover the tracks they wanted to use was not able to recieve the nessessary right to use them left the DJ to have to choose something else which they can recieve rights to use I cannot even count how many times that's happend it's so much.

-Jason I don't have any lengthy discussion on this matter and i was gonna stay out of this little convo between you and doc ,but i happen to be a strong proponent that art in itself is a human right. I believe that music should be considered as a "free reign" type of deal. Ex: if you think that your music would produce a substantial amount of money provideing you with necessities of life, go for it. Those of us who have music and want to share it freely, have the same option. I use to be of the "everyone should share mentality"..but that doesn't fly too far in this society. The common rebuttal is "we should all be starving artists?" ...which is how i became to sit on the matter. If you want to consider your art "work", then there's nothing i can do to squeeze you out of your shell and demand you give it to me. On the same hand ,you cannot tell me that there is something fundamentally wrong with giving away art when i do not consider it work... And to tie this all in with the topic heading: Just becuz one pays for your brand of art, doesn't mean they can't rip you off later. You can have all the money from your works and still be unsuccessful.

[Justin]

Last response:

This isn't a matter of facts. Cancer is a fact. The holocoust is a fact. In contrast, this is a matter of principles, which are basically a more formal version of opinions. Everyone knows you can't prove an opinion. The same goes with principles. Is art a commodity? Arguments here are totally irrelevant. All that matters is what people feel deep down.

edited to add: I'll make further replies to my posistion once other people start posting their thoughts on the piece. I really don't want to dominate the conversation, which unfortunately I feel may happen without my instituting proper self-restraint.

peace and love yalz, and damn, I know more than five or six people have opinions on this.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
I don't have any lengthy discussion on this matter and i was gonna stay out of this little convo between you and doc ,but i happen to be a strong proponent that art in itself is a human right. I believe that music should be considered as a "free reign" type of deal. Ex: if you think that your music would produce a substantial amount of money provideing you with necessities of life, go for it. Those of us who have music and want to share it freely, have the same option. I use to be of the "everyone should share mentality"..but that doesn't fly too far in this society. The common rebuttal is "we should all be starving artists?" ...which is how i became to sit on the matter. If you want to consider your art "work", then there's nothing i can do to squeeze you out of your shell and demand you give it to me. On the same hand ,you cannot tell me that there is something fundamentally wrong with giving away art when i do not consider it work... And to tie this all in with the topic heading: Just becuz one pays for your brand of art, doesn't mean they can't rip you off later. You can have all the money from your works and still be unsuccessful.

Exactly.. it's your art, you should be free to give it away or sell it those who find it worth something to pay for. it's even up to as the artist if you want your art copied. etc etc..

I'm the individual , I'm the artist, and it's my art. so back off! <G>

-Jason

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Well for starters Treaty of Tripoli. Know anything about it? I guess they are refering to the 11th clause. That is said to have read "

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

When it actually reads this:

If we shall be at War with any Christian Power and any of our Vessels sail from the Ports of the United States, no Vessel belonging to the enemy shall follow untill twenty four hours after the Departure of our Vessels; and the same Regulation shall be observed towards the American Vessels sailing from our Ports.-be their enemies Moors or Christians.

---

Now I wouldn't advocate that America was founded on the christian religion. We were not founded on the religion and it's laws, the founding fathers specifically did not want America, it's people and it's government constrained to the wishes of the church, there for we have a seperation between church and state. The only thing religion did was give a basic princiaple to how they went on approaching the laws of the land.

-Jason

Actually, it was referring to this portion:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Don't believe me? Check out this link for a scan of an actual copy (http://www.nobeliefs.com/document.htm) of Article XI. Read it for yourself.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
Last response:

This isn't a matter of facts. Cancer is a fact. The holocoust is a fact. In contrast, this is a matter of principles, which are basically a more formal version of opinions. Everyone knows you can't prove an opinion. The same goes with principles. Is art a commodity? Arguments here are totally irrelevant. All that matters is what people feel deep down.

Okay, I know they are. But what we are talking about is people who use what they feel as fact.

Do you think some person came up with the idea of cancer without the FACTS to back it up? it took allot of research to obtain the facts! Cancer could of been a feeling, or a scientific theory, untill that person can prove their theory by doing the nessesary research to site so than what do you have?

Art is not by itself a commodity. Hair styles, or even tatoos are in itself not a commodity. But they become one. When their are consumers who want a tatoo and a tatoo artist who can provide that serivice wants to sell their ability to put that tatoo on you than it will be done. That tatoo artists doesn't have sell his ability, and a consumer can if they look hard enough to find people who would do it for free. Doc, I guess we all are confused. Are you saying Art should never become a commodity?

- Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


Actually, it was referring to this portion:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Don't believe me? Check out this link for a scan of an actual copy (http://www.nobeliefs.com/document.htm) of Article XI. Read it for yourself.

Well Hex I would advise you look into it futher.

My source is from Yales Avalon Project http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/barmenu.htm

As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.

-Jason

[HexRei]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Well Hex I would advise you look into it futher.

My source is from Yales Avalon Project http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/barmenu.htm

As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.

-Jason


And I advise you to look into it further, since the Barlow translation is the one that was passed out and ratified by the Senate. Regardless of how unfaithful it was to the Arabic original, it is the one that was signed by John Adams and ratified by the Senate.

[DJ Rawkus]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD




Art is not by itself a commodity. Hair styles, or even tatoos are in itself not a commodity. But they become one. When their are consumers who want a tatoo and a tatoo artist who can provide that serivice wants to sell their ability to put that tatoo on you than it will be done. That tatoo artists doesn't have sell his ability, and a consumer can if they look hard enough to find people who would do it for free. Doc, I guess we all are confused. Are you saying Art should never become a commodity?

- Jason good point! I personally think that art is priceless and you can't put a dollar value on it, but i had tried to bargain with that mentality in the tattoo shop last month, they woulda handed me my ass out in the street. :D If I can come to the agreement that someone else's art is worth paying for, i have no qualms about that. If in fact it IS art and not well... bullshit art. I don't think i'd ever make someone pay for my art tho...it's just weird and unnatural for me.

[MC Junglitachi Magic Wand]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem
The phenonina of mp3 swapping demonstrates the failings of the free-market economy.

Hah!

Good editorial though. I agree with your logic 100%. But like many, you equate the problem with the "free market economy." The problem is not with the "free market economy," but with the fact that Capitalism, in the absence of any government whatsoever, eventually morphs into Mercantilism.

The Bible example is right on. There are some people who extrapolate "Libertarian" ideaology in the wrong direction; these are the people who blur the difference between Capitalism and Mercantilism.

The founding principles of Capitalism are not solely privatization; it is privatization and competition. The merchants "guilds" of England, which Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in response to, were private. They were also anticompetetive.

As such, true Capitalism requires intervention when companies behave in a way that does not foster competition. In the beginning days of our country, this was accomplished with corporate charters; after charters, it was accomplished with antitrust law. The downside of charters was that they could be too regulatory and be detrimental to the marketplace. The downside of antitrust is that requiring long lawsuits in order to correct anticompetetive practices means that often not enough correction of anticompetetive practices happen.

The RIAA is not Capitalist, it's Mercantilist. It is a group of companies (a "guild") which collaborate to keep prices high. In the early 90s, Target broke the "gentleman's agreement" many retailers had with the record companies and started selling cheap, cheap CDs. The result? The RIAA said they would not be sending the new releases Target's way until Target jacked up their prices to be in line with most other peoples'.

MP3-swapping does not demonstrate the failings of the free-market economy, but rather of Mercantilism. The RIAA should have been split long ago. Mercantilist guilds keep prices high, and quality low.

If CDs were $5 a piece, how many of us would still be going to the trouble to burn all our music?

[HexRei]

Originally posted by MC In-Before-The-Lock


Hah!

Good editorial though. I agree with your logic 100%. But like many, you equate the problem with the "free market economy." The problem is not with the "free market economy," but with the fact that Capitalism, in the absence of any government whatsoever, eventually morphs into Mercantilism.

The Bible example is right on. There are some people who extrapolate "Libertarian" ideaology in the wrong direction; these are the people who blur the difference between Capitalism and Mercantilism.

The founding principles of Capitalism are not solely privatization; it is privatization and competition. The merchants "guilds" of England, which Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in response to, were private. They were also anticompetetive.

As such, true Capitalism requires intervention when companies behave in a way that does not foster competition. In the beginning days of our country, this was accomplished with corporate charters; after charters, it was accomplished with antitrust law. The downside of charters was that they could be too regulatory and be detrimental to the marketplace. The downside of antitrust is that requiring long lawsuits in order to correct anticompetetive practices means that often not enough correction of anticompetetive practices happen.

The RIAA is not Capitalist, it's Mercantilist. It is a group of companies (a "guild") which collaborate to keep prices high. In the early 90s, Target broke the "gentleman's agreement" many retailers had with the record companies and started selling cheap, cheap CDs. The result? The RIAA said they would not be sending the new releases Target's way until Target jacked up their prices to be in line with most other peoples'.

MP3-swapping does not demonstrate the failings of the free-market economy, but rather of Mercantilism. The RIAA should have been split long ago. Mercantilist guilds keep prices high, and quality low.

If CDs were $5 a piece, how many of us would still be going to the trouble to burn all our music?

werd! competitivism is an important factor of capitalism, something many big corporate proponents conveniently forget. The government needs to exist to keep would-be monopolies and trusts in check.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by DJ Rawkus
good point! I personally think that art is priceless and you can't put a dollar value on it, but i had tried to bargain with that mentality in the tattoo shop last month, they woulda handed me my ass out in the street. :D If I can come to the agreement that someone else's art is worth paying for, i have no qualms about that. If in fact it IS art and not well... bullshit art. I don't think i'd ever make someone pay for my art tho...it's just weird and unnatural for me.

My tatoo wasn't cheap either. It's nothing special but for me. But I wanted to go somewhere where the guy was reputable, and his artwork was on the wall for display to proove it. Plus pictures of past clients. I couldn't of been more greatfull for this man to put some of his work on my shoulder. Some stuff the guys does for free, he said that sometimes he'll cover allot of area for someone if they go together on an idea of some art to ink on the flesh. My buddy Todd has gotten like 22 Tatoos or something like that. Rawkus that reminds me, I'm gonna get some pictures of his tat's and put em on my website, I think he'll be proud of that.

Later,
-Jason

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by HexRei


werd! competitivism is an important factor of capitalism, something many big corporate proponents conveniently forget. The government needs to exist to keep would-be monopolies and trusts in check.

Unfortantley they also work in favor of protecting these coporations at times in the past. Or they helped the little guy by splliting up big guys when the big guys probaly never violated any antitrust laws. If I remember correctly Big Blue had that happen.

-Jason

[burnt]

uhm........this post has less to do with "privatization" in general, and more about the commercialization of art.

I've often been told that Wiccans believe that a witch is never supposed to share his/her skills for profit. only for good karma.

its also a generally societally accepted belief, that whores are kinda lame because they don't "make love", they just fuck. they don't kiss their clients on the mouth. so being with a whore isn't *really* a decent outlet for all of the sharing & releases that sex can provide........its just bustin a nut.

so..............following that kind of "ethical logic" (just made up that term), it stands to reason that its kinda whorish...or bad karma...to *expect* payment for art.

if you're changing the way a person perceives their life...making them "happy" or "sad" or whatever...is it *right* to expect payment?

personally, I don't give a fuck if anyone dubs/exploits my shit. I have a job, that allows me to contribute what i need to contribute to my community. my *job* adds my value to the culture.

and then there's my art. and please. I beg any of you - all of you. find my grafx. get a copy of my mixes. dub my shit. steal it. better yet, decide that my shit is half-assed, then dragass your damn selves, hop off the couch, and do a better job!

that's my hope for the world. I wish people were more artistic, and more generous in sharing their art.

I'm not in this for the glory. I'm not in this for the money. I'm in this for the karma. and, like, I'm a real fuckwad, so I need all the help I can get.

but fuck artists who expect or even demand payment for their art. fuck artists who refuse to share their art without a profit and a contract. you heard me.....the future is now.

I mean, hell, if my friend needs a hug, like, really needs a hug - I don't hold onto that hug like an I.O.U. - I hug em. the same goes with inspirational music. If I like it - and its online - I'm taking it. cuz my poor old heart needed it. and cuz I'm desperate...and have the skills to just simply take it.

end of story. welcome to the dub culture, all you Lars Ulrich wannabe's.

[DJ Rawkus]

better artist: Mr. *daddy warbucks* satriani or that penniless bum with a 5 string in pioneer square?

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by burnt
but fuck artists who expect or even demand payment for their art. fuck artists who refuse to share their art without a profit and a contract.

That's a nice sentiment. It would be sweet if everyone could do it "for the love of it". You say you have a day-job which keeps you in the ping. Well, some artists spend so much time doing their art that they cannot have a day-job. Their art is their day-job. Do you expect them to receive nothing in return for their labours? Do you expect the novelist, who spends three years of their life writing a book, to have it published and given away on street corners, while nearby the writer panhandles for spare change?

Back home in New Zealand, the government has recently set up an "artists wage" dole. If you can prove that you are a serious artist who needs to spend all day on your art, you can qualify for a low, but livable, welfare cheque. Apparently they have been overwhelmed with applications. As a taxpayer the idea sits well with me, I'm glad some of the money I give to my country goes to those artists who will enrich it culturally.

[burnt]

Do you expect them to receive nothing in return for their labours? Do you expect the novelist, who spends three years of their life writing a book, to have it published and given away on street corners, while nearby the writer panhandles for spare change?

naw, I mean, of course not. and kudos to the artists that *can* do it fulltime, and kudos to em for bustin their hump just to get to that point. but I expect em to understand that if I feel like, just, taking their art, or part of their art, I'm gonna. and the artists shouldn't throw a big fuckin hissyfit when I do. I mean, like I said, we live in a dub culture now..

most folks'll buy the book. but if its a really popular book, and I can cobble the thing together from various quotes on the internet, and I'm not even supposed to read the book at *all* before buying it, and the book costs $100, instead of $20, and the last 5 books from the author have just stanken the whole place up, and this one's supposed to suck just as hard, except for this one kickass chapter???.........yea, I'm gonna dub it. me and my magic sharpie.

there was a time, many years ago, when folks helped out on the farm.....then they helped in the kitchen.....then they got their banjos or string bass's or harmonicas or jaw harps, and they all helped out with the singin and dancin...no biggie.

today we kind of seem to put art on this pedastal. like, "ooooh....that person is *artistic*" or something, like its a mystic rarity. and thats just not the case, at least not in my perception. and I think thats part of the problem, we're in an artistic drought right now, supply/demand is all fuxored up, but people still want art.

now, if I make a mix, or a track, or a graphic, or a tag, or a poem, and even if its like, really really really really really good and makes people cry or sing in the car or boogie their buns'es - well, fuck, I mean, *I* was inspired by someone or something.....either nature, or people, or my society, or God, or whatever. something that - you know - inspired me.

so is the art really *mine* or did I just - I dunno, paraphrase a small piece of "The Real World" into something tangible and pleasurable for the masses to enjoy for a short while? corporate types call this a "vested interest."

I dunno.........I mean, you're *totally* right about the author spanging on the corner (although thats prolly the source of the inspiration ;) ). But I still can't justify, in my mind, expecting or even demanding compensation for what really only amounts to giving a few heads the Warm Fuzzy feelings. I even believed this way before I had the cushy job, it used to piss the hell out of my Theory professor...

I just wish *my* government would comp rekkids or something like yours does.......*sigh*

[MC Junglitachi Magic Wand]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD
Unfortantley they also work in favor of protecting these coporations at times in the past. Or they helped the little guy by splliting up big guys when the big guys probaly never violated any antitrust laws.

Such, as... Microsoft?

Exactly, Zupan, exactly - and this is why we need limited government. Haven't you ever found it interesting that the biggest states in the suit against Microsoft conveniently hold Microsoft's competitors? Hmm.

Mercantilism coexisted with big government. The Hudson's Bay Company was a private entity that worked in cooperation with the government to further British colonization of the planet. In response, they got monopolies on many many products, protected by the British military.

As far as antitrust goes, though Zupan, I tend to think the downsides of antitrust are less than the downsides of corporate charters, which are the only other time-tested way of helping foster competition.

But the phenomena of governments rushing to protect their tax dollars is telling. If these governments weren't taxing their corporations up the wazzu to begin with, they wouldn't have a vested interest in said corporations.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Hex, nice try though..

Actually in one sense Hex has a point .. although a good many of the founders were Christian.. (all subscribed to judeo christian ethics).. a lot of them were diests.. meaning they believed in or accepted that there was a higher power.. a creator..

One of the reasons its so easy to discount the assertion that the word GOD or Creator in some of our founding documents and used in some of our government rituals is an endorsment of a specific religion is precisely because so many of the founders.. while ardently believing in god.. did not follow a specific religion.

See if you pay attention Zup you can easily trip some of these folks up with their own "logic".. they will assert that the founders werent christian yet assert that the word GOD used so many ways in this country.. many of those instances established by the founders at the beginning of this country ...breach the establishment clause. What I find is this intellectual dishonesty betrays those peoples prejudices agianst certain religions.. mostly christian.

Mike

[Roddimus]

One of the reasons its so easy to discount the assertion that the word GOD or Creator in some of our founding documents and used in some of our government rituals is an endorsment of a specific religion is precisely because so many of the founders.. while ardently believing in god.. did not follow a specific religion.
Exactly! Freemasons run the country!
:p

[Roddimus]

Nice try to equivaquate the two. All though I agree 100% your trying to compare two totally different cases.
Oh come on Jason! Try and tell me what Sony did to Rolando was anything but underhanded, immoral and wrong! They stole his music and made a profit. Period.
At least Napster and Audiogalaxy both never achieved anyting close to a profit before they were shut down.
I'll agree that those file sharing services were pretty arrogant to think they could get away with their type of centralized MP3 server system for very long.
But for all the PR the major record companies spew out about being helpless victims of wise-ass college kids with no respect for capitalism or artist's rights, the facts show the big companies are hardly any better when it comes to respecting the work of artists who want nothing to do with the mainstream record industry.
I wasn't trying to say because of what Sony did to Rolando, stealing music from them is OK. I was simply pointing out their blatent hypocrisy when it comes to artist's rights.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Mike S


Actually in one sense Hex has a point .. although a good many of the founders were Christian.. (all subscribed to judeo christian ethics).. a lot of them were diests.. meaning they believed in or accepted that there was a higher power.. a creator..

One of the reasons its so easy to discount the assertion that the word GOD or Creator in some of our founding documents and used in some of our government rituals is an endorsment of a specific religion is precisely because so many of the founders.. while ardently believing in god.. did not follow a specific religion.

See if you pay attention Zup you can easily trip some of these folks up with their own "logic".. they will assert that the founders werent christian yet assert that the word GOD used so many ways in this country.. many of those instances established by the founders at the beginning of this country ...breach the establishment clause. What I find is this intellectual dishonesty betrays those peoples prejudices agianst certain religions.. mostly christian.

Mike

I think this article sums it up..

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Roddimus

Oh come on Jason! Try and tell me what Sony did to Rolando was anything but underhanded, immoral and wrong! They stole his music and made a profit. Period.
At least Napster and Audiogalaxy both never achieved anyting close to a profit before they were shut down.
I'll agree that those file sharing services were pretty arrogant to think they could get away with their type of centralized MP3 server system for very long.
But for all the PR the major record companies spew out about being helpless victims of wise-ass college kids with no respect for capitalism or artist's rights, the facts show the big companies are hardly any better when it comes to respecting the work of artists who want nothing to do with the mainstream record industry.
I wasn't trying to say because of what Sony did to Rolando, stealing music from them is OK. I was simply pointing out their blatent hypocrisy when it comes to artist's rights.

Rom I just don't like your idea of using one exception and arguing that it's the rule. I just don't buy it. It's dishonest.

-Jason

[Roddimus]

I'll concede that it's probably not "the rule" for the entire industry, but as far as Sony/BMG (one of the biggest players in the artists' rights and copyright debate) is concerned, their hypocrisy is apparent and sickening.
And also, I'm confused as to why you keep calling me "Rom." My screen name is R O D D I M U S...I don't see where you get an "m" from...
My real name is Jesse BTW. Feel free to refer to me as that.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Roddimus
I'll concede that it's probably not "the rule" for the entire industry, but as far as Sony/BMG (one of the biggest players in the artists' rights and copyright debate) is concerned, their hypocrisy is apparent and sickening.
And also, I'm confused as to why you keep calling me "Rom." My screen name is R O D D I M U S...I don't see where you get an "m" from...
My real name is Jesse BTW. Feel free to refer to me as that.

I agree.. ohh and sorry about Rom it's just my way of making it short like people say to me Zupe .. or Zuppie, or what ever.. <G>

Ron, Rom, Rod.. does it matter? <G>

Take care Jesse!

-Jason

[Roddimus]

Oh yeah...And as far as the art vs. commodity argument...Here's where I stand.
To quote Horatio Sanz as Rico Suave "For it is art that seperates us from the animals. And if an artist cannot sustain himself then he cannot flourish. So it was for Voltaire and Gershwin, and the Rico Suave."

[DJ Rawkus]

Originally posted by Roddimus
Oh yeah...And as far as the art vs. commodity argument...Here's where I stand.
To quote Horatio Sanz as Rico Suave "For it is art that seperates us from the animals. And if an artist cannot sustain himself then he cannot flourish. So it was for Voltaire and Gershwin, and the Rico Suave." AHH! the joys of SNL on comedy central :D I liked pet shop boy impersonation too...