Nobody misunderstands your point. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the distinctions others see as important says everything anyone concerned with truth needs to know about the underpinnings of your argument.
If the truth is not important to your argument, your arguments is weak.
I like your thought process, but don't fool yourself into thinking the battle is essentially won. This goes far deeper than just Hollywood. Centralized control over information and media is the stuff of big politics and businesses that have absolutely nothing to do with entertainment. They want to control what you see to help moderate how quickly you put two and two together in the larger context of human rights, the economy, and everything else important.
Powerful people have a HUGE stake in keeping information under wraps. Using Hollywood to kill technology that tends to undermine secrecy is just one small part of a much larger set of policies.
They will keep trying. They will not be admitting they are wrong...
Everyone already has the "right" (ability) to ATTEMPT to "exploit" their own work, of whatever nature that work might be. The problem with much creative work is that it is not work. It is sitting around thinking.
If you demonstrate that your sitting around thinking is a good thing, people will pay you for it. If not, they won't. Passing laws so that jack booted thugs can break into my house, seize me and my actual, real property, and put me in jail or fine me so that you can "exploit" "your" work is ludicrous.
If you don't want your "work" to proliferate publicly, perform in private and only for people who are willing to sign a contract stating they will not share it.
See how far you get....
This stuff is SO LUDICROUS. Where do you people get this stuff?
The reason it is hard to make money acting, singing, dancing, playing pop music, etc, is that these are things many, many thousands, hundreds of thousands, of people are able and willing to do for free. They are FUN. They are leisure time activities. You don't have a RIGHT to have the government force people to pay you for them.
"Then do without." I do without. I'm just that kind of person. I not only disagree with copyright, its use makes me furious at the people who use it, so I opt out.
It is absolutely 100% dishonest to conflate copyright in any way shape or form with property law. Period.
The reason it is hard to get paid for SOME art is that much of it today is performance art, which leaves no actual commodity to be sold. Perfomance art is captured by technological processes that have absolutely nothing to do with the work the artist is doing.
Performance art is cheap now because we no longer have to be where the artist is to consume it. That means performers need to change, not the whole rest of the planet.
Once upon a time, artists of moderate skill and talent made a living making copies. Now that "skill" is of little benefit. La tee daa.
I am tired of the pretense that people willing to sell their souls to the media tyrants are in desperate need of handouts or else they won't be able to work without a side job (translation - REAL job).
If your ability to communicate and perform is good enough, people WILL pay you. If not, you need to have a side job.
Violation of copyright is not theft. Copyright is not a property right, legally or morally.
The more people like you say things like "property rights" concerning IP, the more convinced I am that you are evil.
Do you honestly expect me to believe that you do not know the diference between taking something from someone and making something yourself that looks just like it? The later is violation of IP. THe former is theft. The latter is prevented ostensibly to encourage innovation. The former is prevented because one person gets something without working for it, and the other person loses something they had use of before.
When someone copies, the original is always left in place.
Talking theft and property rights when they are not applicable is outright lying, and people such as yourself who continue to do so should be shamed and held accountable for your obvious lack of concern with truth in this important topic.
There are always Uncle Tom's willing to jump on the side of oppression just to get a seat in the house, no matter how disrespected they may still be once inside.
"...just that DNA/RNA that was first found in the Human body and then manipulated and transformed into something different can be."
It's not being transformed into anything else. It is still human DNA from a human body.
Most people here are pretty familiar with the basics of this and similar suits, and have very good reasons for not wanting this sort of IP. You put people who do any sort of gene therapy at risk of lawsuit for no good reason, no matter what method they use, because the gene they are working on is patented.
If a creator is doing work without getting paid up front, that's their problem. If a developer builds a house in a bad neighborhood as an "investment", he is guaranteed nothing. He loses money if he spends more building it than he does selling it. That's how art should work too.
Most artists know well enough that the system in place now is there for the powerful distributors and not for the artists. Those artists who support the current model tend to whine that they won't be able to be superstars and make millions (both untrue and worthy of a "whaa whaa whaa" response even if it is).
Artists support these fiends in distribution, in other words, because of their own greed.
I'd like for copyright in particular to just be completely swept away. Welcome back to the world of real work, pretty people.
This is as extreme a post as I have ever seen Mike make on this topic. He sounds more like me than himself.
To me, your argument that we need balance for content is correct, but pointed in the wrong direction. We need entertainers, writer, and especially distributors to be dependent on their customers for income. With copyright, they are not. They can make a living perfectly fine without being allowed to threaten legal sanctions if anyone copies their work. I find this especially unjust when applied to protect distributors, but people who want to sing, dance, paint, write, etc for a living need to understand something.
Most people do these things for FUN.
After a long day doing something far less entertaining, people sing. They dance. They play games and write stories about the games they play and the things they do. A good number of people write songs and stories of fiction just for fun.
If you want to PLAY for a LIVING, you'd best be damned good and you'd best be willing to play for a living at LEAST 40 hours a week, week in and week out, just like everyone else does.
Or else change professions.
I have never once heard folks who have the view you have present even the faintest reason why it should be otherwise. "But, we won't have any great art!"
Knowledge about genes in general is simply knowledge about something naturally occurring. You can't patent a rock, and you can't patent a gene. At least, not and remain honest.
Privacy is more like, you can't steal and look at MY genes, which indeed has an application if we are moving to an insurance based medical system where risk determines whether or not you get treatment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quality of life
I look at things much differently. Rome, for example, did not so much fall as the rest of Europe caught up to it. It ceased to be dominant. I think I have current scholarship with me on that as well. The old views of the fall of Rome are being supplanted by understanding that involves the fact that the Germanics, who had been becoming a larger and larger portion of the population of "Rome" for centuries, finally simply took over. The so called "Dark Ages" are full of progress. The idea that progress took a long nap during this period is all but dead everywhere except in the eye of mass media fueled pop history, no small part of that in turn fueled by the ghosts of anti-clericalism with roots in the Protestant revolution and, of course, the French Revolution. The Christian "Dark Ages" need to be compared unfavorably with the secular "Enlightenment". This political ideology has long outlasted its usefulness, and modern historical research has undone it in terms of actual, demonstrable, factual progress throughout those years being documented.
Basically, if Rome fell because the progress trap, then how did we end up with so much progress from then to now? It is the cultures that have not progressed as rapidly that have failed, not the ones who progress too rapidly.
Greed is one issue. Apathy is another. Greed and apathy are ancient evils, spoken of in all the great societies going back as far as you care to look, and are not at all complex either in terms of origin or how to go about "fixing" them. Further, they are never going to go completely away, and there is not going to be some technological solution for them.
We are not caught up in some cataclysmic last days scenario, or at least not in one that is based on too much progress. We just need to do something proactive about our greed and our apathy.
There are of course other moral and ethical shortcomings that come to bear, but these two seem to be the most applicable to political issues. We struggle to get the general populace involved, and barring that, for some reason, it seems to be the greedy and self serving who work most energetically to attain to power.
"The human species, led by white Europeans and Euro-Americans, has been on a 500-year-long planetwide rampage of conquering, plundering, looting, exploiting and polluting the Earth—as well as killing the indigenous communities that stood in the way"
"Modern capitalist societies, Wright argues in his book 'What Is America?: A Short History of the New World Order,' derive from European invaders’ plundering of the indigenous cultures in the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries, coupled with the use of African slaves as a workforce to replace the natives."
"If Europe had not been able to seize the gold of the Aztec and Inca civilizations, if it had not been able to occupy the land and adopt highly productive New World crops for use on European farms, the growth of industrial society in Europe would have been much slower. Karl Marx and Adam Smith...."
It reads like a bunch of 60's level anti-American revisionism. No one argues what was done to various societies all around the world was ideal, but give folks a break for coming to the Aztecs, seeing a society where people competed for the privilege of being sacrificed (a not entirely unheard of thing in the prehistory of Europe as well that had long since been abandoned), and failed to see these cultures as equal in the sense of other cultures they had long been in close contact with.
That last paragraph almost seems to imply Europeans were so backwards that, had they not come to America, they wouldn't have been able to FARM. It was precisely their capacity for large scale farming that led to the spare time to build all those ships and guns they kept threatening everyone with.
Their ability to organize was due to less, not more, corruption and better, not worse, understanding of the world they lived in.
This is important information if the real goal is to progress and not merely to support the ongoing war between "capitalism" and "communism", which are in fact just two sides of the same unbalanced approach to centralization and cooperation. Centralization and cooperation work. Capitalism AND communism (and yes, socialism) have problems. We need to move beyond these tired, rehashed "solutions", or perhaps not even so much "beyond" them as be able to recognize them as part of the same general set of things that need to be refined.
But I mean, if you're going to put a link up that has repeated attacks against European action around the world and then wonder why someone thinks you have a problem with Europe's history and expansion to the exclusion of what was going wrong everywhere else, I don't get why you then turn around and say you didn't mean to imply any of that.
The supposed "easier problems" of social reform are in no small part due to the lack of room for population expansion. Population pressures have really only one direction to be released towards these days - up.
You seem to be suggesting the "easy" problem is reprogramming all of human behavior and culture.
It's actually easier to explore space than the ocean.... Pressure differential is less steep. We're being scared away from it in no small part because the rich are all squishy inside about the cost being something that will eat away at their ability to buy caviar and hire gardening help.
Seriously... a lack of vision for the future is a big part of why we cannot find unity. The same technologies that will allow us to live on this planet more efficiently will allow us to leave it. Stop using panic driven scare tactics to try to convince people they need to live in the stone age to save resources.
There is an entire universe out there full of resources, and we have done nothing BUT get closer and closer to being able to reach them over the years.
"Wright said. 'It is an absurd myth. We live on this planet. We can’t leave it and go somewhere else.'"
And this is just a bald faced lie. Barring the return of Jesus or some other equally magnificent supernatural event, the clear march of progress is towards people leaving this planet. I think folks need to get used to this idea and start working on it as part of the mainstream of economic endeavor rather than constantly talking about it as if it were some sort of waste of time and effort.