[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Sun Mar 31 03:27:03 UTC 2002


On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote:
> >That metamorphosis is EXACTLY what Marx describes in Capital.
> >
> >He claimed that as technology improved, the same would happen to all
> >industries.
> 
> Is it?  I don't know what the music industry will look like in few
> years.  What I expect is that different companies are going to
> establish business models that work with the new technologies and will
> profit.  The companies that never accept the change will parish.  We
> can debate the ethics of sharing files endlessly, but that won't stop
> people from doing it.  Neither will Congress and niether will
> Microshaft.  What does that have to Marx?  The capitalists will find a
> way to make money off of it.

The point is that a market without scarcity ceases to be a market.

There is no longer scarcity in music distribution (only the artificial
scarcity imposed by copyright).  We don't have to move atoms around
anymore.  Hence, the distribution of copies of musical recordings is no
longer a market and the capitalists will have to find some other scarcity
to exploit for their profits.

> I think we need beefed up security at airports right now.  Airlines
> are paying for the security.  It is called tax.  Airlines want to get
> rid of the security anyway because it slows down their operation and
> discurages business.  We will return to business as usual before you
> know it.

I want to see you put a deadline on that.  How long will you allow the
federal government to perform security checks at public airports before
you take arms against your oppressors?

Right now the federal government is overstepping its bounds.  What has to
happen before you see the need for revolution?

> >And I was countering your counter by showing that it isn't capitalists
> >doing the educating, it's a public agency.
> 
> But haven't you said that the capitalists control the government and
> therefore the public agencies?

If I used the word "control", I misspoke or meant only a limited kind of
control.  I'm more apt to use a phrase like "unduly influence".

> >Absolutely.  Fascism is the ultimate goal of capitalists, whether they
> >know it or not.  It means for happy workers, working hard without regard
> >for themselves.
> 
> I don't think the workers were very happy.

Until fairly late in the war, Mousilini was loved.  Hell, he made the
trains run on time.

He was especially loved, even late in the war, by the wealthy.

> >You'll not convince me that the American public new what was happening to 
> >the Jews.  (I have relatives that were alive then.)  As for the aristocasy,
> >don't people constantly claim the Jew control the News Media?

[Why was this bit quoted when it's not my material?  I left the carets
because they're yours, but they misattribute the comments by convention.]

Despite whether or not the "American public" knew what was happening to
the Jews, it was known to the American press and government.  They chose
to bury it.

And the people that constantly claim the Jews control the news media are
crackpots and anti-Semites.

> >But we CAN declare ware on "terror"?  My point is that the chosen "enemy"
> >was as non-specific as possible.  You don't know if you're the enemy
> >until they crash through your door (or, in our case, run you down with
> >horses).
> 
> So should we do nothing?  Clinton tried that and it didn't work.

I'd hardly call support of NAFTA, WTO, the WorldBank/IMF, Israeli
aggression, continued sanctions against Iraq, and the U.S. oil magnates'
interests "nothing".

Clinton was quite probably the worst President the U.S. had ever had with
regard to human rights both foreign and domestic.  Likely Bush'll top him,
though.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list