• Moved from “After Long Silence”

    Moving Poptones’ message to the correct thread…

    From the referenced article:

    When William summoned his wife, Princess Mary, by royal yacht from Holland after his victory, she made a point of bringing along John Locke, one of the revolution’s intellectual backers, who had been very busy during his exile in Holland composing what turned out to be major statements on natural rights, representative government, and the pursuit of life, liberty, and property.

    I think some still cannot grasp the notion that the intangible can take on the attributes of physical property – and that it must if this next “revolution” is to actually be a revolution rather than just another scalp hanging from the corporate belt.
    » posted by poptones on Sep 6 05 at 8:14 PM

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Pop “Causby” Tones:

    I think some still cannot grasp the notion that the intangible can take on the attributes of physical property – and that it must if this next “revolution” is to actually be a revolution rather than just another scalp hanging from the corporate belt.

    The internet airplane is flying over your land. However, most don’t see the usefulness of this intAIRnet. So you – unlike the Causbys – will likely be successful in your perversion of common sense at the expense of the greater good.

    Your muddying of the waters with Locke – and the Mice’s “Magna Carta” references – are simply too strong of weapons for the ignorant and apathetic to question. Those familiar with the issue see quite clearly that the solution is to build an entirely new and innovative chicken coop. But common sense will likely be crushed under the externalities you and the entertainment corporations wish to foist upon us.

  • http://commonsrights.blogspot.com/ poptones

    Thanks for moving the post.

    Now I will ask PR and any others who share his sentiment: Why do you insist this is being “foisted” upon you? The technology is yours to use or not use; I do not own a PSP, a PS2, an xbox or any of that crap because I do not find value in it. How many of you own one of these electronic shrines of proprietary technology?

    I’ve made this case as clearly as I can. Please keep in mind you are arguing here with a man who has essentially rejected the machine after having lived in it. In spite of the fact I just spent an incredibly enjoyable two hours watching my DVD of The Hunt for Red October for the umpteenth time, I really do not fear Hollywood “locking up” its product because, for the most part, all I see from Hollywood is utter crap. They can lock up that “culture” behind armed guards for all I care, it’s not my culture. If they never made another movie in Hollywood it would not remove from my shelf the volumes of classic films that together have given us the modern language of “culture.”

    But if you insist on raising your child to believe “normalcy” depends on hours spent in front of a video screen watching gentrified Disney rehashes of classic children’s stories, then that is your choice to make just as is mine regarding the values I would instill in my own child.

    The only solution to this being offered by the commons-ists (oh dear, now I’m doing it) is through some sort of “tax” that then gets divided up among the producers.

    And who would pay the tax? The people who subscribe to the internet? But isn’t the goal to make the internet as ubiquitous as air? So how do we tax air? Who pays? The only way to enforce such a tax would mean requiring everyone who connects to be held accountable. That means no free wifi hubs because we can’t have people subverting the system. So machines would still have to be built that would not allow the lowly individual to bypass the tax collector. That means no ubiquitous internet. That means no anonymous connections, ever.

    And even if it were popssible to do all this, I still have to wonder just how much of those taxes would be distributed to me, or Johan, or my fellow southerner from the east, that Typical Joe – for we, too, are producers of content. Isn’t the entire point of the internet, in fact, that we are all producers? So we rob from Peter to pay…. Peter? No, I’m sure instead such a taxation structure would simply divide up the proceeds among the carefully picked Hollywood agencies who paid the lobbyists in washington to bribe the proper senators and congress creatures.

    How the hell can you call yourself part of a “free culture movement” when the only solutions you can offer involve restricting choice and forcing me to subsidize your addiction? If you don’t like the way Hollywood is going, stop giving them your money. If you are unable to do this for whatever reason, it is not society’s obligation to feed the hole in your arm.

    The merit of my arguments has nothing to do with this. Technology marches on regardless of whether some of us are emotionally prepared to handle it. In this nation you and I have the same right as Disney and Sony right to use encryption, and the only arguably “fair” way to turn back from that future is to outlaw encryption technology for us all – which also means completely overturning the first ammendment to the US Constitution (as if it isn’t infringed upon enough already!)

    But don’t despair; If you truly wish for a technological future where the people are free of media (or an internet) wrapped up in robust encryption, there’s still a place where you will be quite welcome. A place where the people are denied that right of expression (among many others) because their government fears the power such expression offers the commoner to inform themselves and to organize against the forces that lord over them.

    So which is it? I hear a lot of cries of “free” from you, but it still appears all you’re in it for is a free ride. Freedom is about offering choices, but it seems that’s only acceptable to you so long as the market chooses what you want.

  • dingo ate my baby
  • http://commonsrights.blogspot.com/ poptones

    I hope they win.

    You cannot legislate competition. Companies that foolishly buy into a single source for their infrastructure buildout will go the way of the dodo. Legislating speech is an obstacle to open competition that makes it harder for open source to compete on its own merits.