that first made almost unlimited copies possible, and soon spread and made unlawful copying easier than ever. No principles were obviously changed with the spread of such machines, just that statute got caught up to a new bunch of pirates with acces to new machines that they didn’t make, either, trying the same old grifting to get unearned income off someone else’s creations.

do you display books and magazines on shelves or tables so others can browse, read or borrow them? Maybe even books you don’t own, your partners or children? Have you never borrowed a book, read it and then bought more of that author? You share files, your parents shared files, becasue its good to share, it increases learning and sales. You are just a hypocrite.

About the review on Amazon. They used the word piracy! Did the book also use the same word? Idiots. The public has clearly not recognized any new meaning for that word especially not the MPAA or RIAA and not the least general prosecution attorneys. The accusation of ‘pirate’ still has a stinging aspect to it used effectively (and unfairly) by malcontents contending that sharing culture is bad.

Grrrrr. Wruff. Rufff! Down boy… Dowwwwnnnn. Easy there.

For the general public this is rocket science. Most people have been brainwashed (including me) over the years to blindly accept copyright/bureaucracy/corporate benevolence as a good and wise thing. Don’t we all feel so much safer and comfortable with so much protective custody of our culture and property rights? Its incalculable. It has taken years of paying attention, questioning authority repeatedly, to be able to think in a stand alone way.

Although copyright might be just a small part of the overall whitewash strategy (hint; special interest groups) it is so much more important to the average citizen through the sharing and creation of new culture. Modern day eternal copyright combined with current criminalization of (What was once) civil law has such a stifling restraint on new cultural works creation that… few time am speechless.

One might cry out that all this is aleatory tin foil hat imaginary paranoid corckity crap. And. For the most part… YOU’D BE RIGHT! The exception being special interest groups as even government does not have the general resolve or consistency needed to pull something/anything like that. (off)

Special interest groups are extremely educated, highly paid organizations forcibly held to the grindstone by industry/corporations/business. They have a permanence that spans over the political interruptions normally called elections. This consistency allows them to out maneuver/plan around even the smartest of candidates/electives. They write speeches, give consultations on strategy for legislation, provide even the text for such legislation and grease the way with contributions.

It is likely that current special interest groups know that their efforts to preserve or expand the current eternal copyright regime is killing off new cultural growth. If true it would make their whining machinations cigarette arguments. These same special interest groups might just as well be called Shinigami-Grim Reaper Cultural Death Scythe Incorporated. Especially when one realizes that it is done only for monopolistic reasons. (The very definition of a copyright is a monopoly.)

Arrrrr. -dumps rant- (go read some past posts on that) Onto the meat of the topic.

The whole concept of live or recorded performance regulation (another idiotic term ‘performance rights’ should be rephrased as ‘performance rights theft’ as in the right to perform music for ourselves, whatever the source, has been stolen.) removes from daily use the songs/plays/TV-shows/books that we want to sing-about/act-out/act-out/quote-from (respectively) to enrich our lives with the learned wisdom of others. To put up barriers preventing us from growing along ways that are good/better/great is a cultural crime.

To copywrong (right) such valuable cultural works out of mainstream society/use cuts off any increase in our cultural IQ. Such legal walls keep us and our children from benefiting from ANY of the works we taught them from including school books and all the nursery rhymes sung/read to them. When the term limits of copyright are beyond the lifetimes of the audience its useless to even purchase or use such legally DRM’d material or media. Yes copyright can also be explained as legally applied DRM on any sort of media.

Why pay good money for a song you cannot sing whenever one wanted? Why go to a play when you could get fined/jailed for just acting out a scene or two from memory to your friends? Why purchase a video that you and your friends could not put together a skit to perform at a party/school/work event?

In short. With copyright and performance laws the way they are cultural development is at a standstill and will go nowhere anytime soon. To make things worse our cultural IQ will get lower without practice or use. Thats right we get dumber as a society without being able to share freely.

-jumps on high horse- (that just happens to be running by randomly)

Be it gossip about the news to one or many friends (without limit), singing around the campfire with family/friends or at girl/boy scouts outings (without limit), reading a book to a group of kids at the library reading group or school classroom (without limit), acting our TV shows or book passages for school/home events (without limit)!!! Karaoke, parodies, satire, comedy or whatever new (story telling method?) culture the general public can create thats great! It must be OK to be creative or it will never happen normally.

Without such freedom of expression cultural expansion will be limited, curtailed and stunted in ways that cannot be evaluated presently. What copyright does is unavoidably regulate the passage of innovation/technology/techniques withing our social circles be it friends/social-groups/business or work related.

Want some reasonable limits? This would apply to groups over 200-500. Seem to high? Nope. Its normal to have 100 plus people over for a decent party. Its bad form to regulate the right to assemble (Public Assembly. A basic human right sometimes interpreted as the right to party, with music or other entertainment, without harassment.) in any way. Its in no way acceptable to intrude upon the daily lives of ordinary citizens. Especially in legal ways be it civil or way out of line criminal.

Want some reasonable limits? Large events. Some commercial usage rules. (hard to work out every detail on the fly here)

Want some reasonable limits? Try a term limit for copyright of 14-28 years as arguably even that is to long for exponential cultural growth. (a great mystical goal of enlightened society) -waves hands in dramatic storyteller flourish- Am not asking for these terms… am expecting them. -finality-

Fair use will hereafter be labeled ?Fair Use Rights? just to reaffirm that they are sacred and beyond commercial/corporate selfishness. Additionally the Public Domain will also be labeled Public Domain Rights for similar cultural defensive posture. The phrase ‘Intellectual Property’ is banned as nothing intellectual can be considered as property. Call it a claim or rent if you want but no term that decries ownership over ideas should be used.

The 14 years would be absolute and any longer terms won by application would not be as firm. Some sort or version of creative commons license would be best. Treaties would be satisfied by requiring continual reapplication every 5years or so. Orphaned works are placed in the public domain after a grace period of 5years. The use of unauthorized works will not be referred as piracy or theft upon risk of defamation or slander as such terms presuppose guilt and can unduly influence an otherwise untainted jury pool.

-hops off high horse- (My back aches. Sure covered a lot of ground there.)

Besides the cultural reasons given its important to not allow the daily intrusion/regulation into the average citizens life by either corporations or government. Anthill societies are NEVER creative and, basically, culturally dead.

Only by increasing the size and breadth of the Public Domain Rights can creativity be enticed/flourish/take-off. Do we visualize a society where our lives are not exploited daily by commercial monopolies? Can we imagine a way of life that accepts the use of ideas created by others for the enrichment/benefit of the wisdom/ideas/knowledge we share as culture? Do we understand the exponential reciprocal benefits such a reiteration of those same ideas by modifying/adding to them as we re share them?

-out of breath- (that was a culturally fun 1200 word ride. Hope ya did not fall asleep.)

I assume the book is copyrighted.