[MD] Fencing the Air

[Case]

[Platt]
Gee. You lost me back in first paragraph. I just keep thinking about all
those Mexicans who have this idyllic country that they can't wait to leave
in order to participate in nasty, rotten, dirty old capitalism. If you want
to argue the finer points of loan costs and copyright etc., let's make it
another thread.

[Case]
Ok, (push rest) Take it from the top:

> [Case]
> Consider this. In the 1500's one of the sins a Man could be
> tortured to confess was Usury. We are not talking about loan sharking we
> are talking about very reasonable rates. In fact any rate was too much.
> It could be argued that this was just another way to mess with Jews. But
> it was also true that usury was considered evil and damned in the
> Christian Bible, the Koran and everyone from Shakespeare to Dickens.
> 
> It is still not used in Islamic banking. At Islamic banks they do not
> charge interest. The bank loans you money for a share of your profit.
> With mortgages the bank buys a house and sells it to you for a profit. 
> 
> 
> One reason usury has been condemned in certain place and at certain
> times is that people wanted a stabile economy. Lending at interest
> requires growth and surplus. Allowing debt allows a Man to consume
> more that he produces and there just isn't that much to go around.
> 
> But what my ancestors thought was sin, is now the foundation of my
> country's economic system. It works fine though or scare goods.
> 
> But the defense of capitalism on moral and pragmatic grounds is starting
> to fray at the edges.  While capitalism is great and moral for
> distributing scares goods, how does it manage if goods can be
> manufactured and distributed for free? Right now the force of government
> is being employed by economic interests to enforce scarcity. 
> 
> Take satellite television for example. At this moment satellites are
> directing all kinds of signals at you in digital and analog. They are
> bouncing through your body. You can buy equipment to receive them off
> the shelf. But we have corporations who make money by preventing you
> from accessing these signals right out of the air. They encrypt their
> signals and even if you can figure out how to decrypt the signal the
> corporation can send armed police officers into your home if they catch
> you doing it.
> 
> This same principle applies in variations to every form of digital
> information. Napster and RIAA are the stuff of modern legend. It is as
> though a corporation manufactured cars, gassed them up and left them on
> the street with the keys in them and expected the government to cover
> the security costs of stopping people from driving off in them.
> 
> But you say, "Oh my god who is going to produce music and movies. Who is
> going to maintain the satellites if no one pays?"
> 
> I say that is kind of a problem for capitalism isn't it? 
> 
> Capitalists invented the term intellectual property rights. They claim
> we can fence in ideas. That we can charge people to think our ideas. We
> are now granting patents on life forms. There is something wrong with
> these concepts. This is essentially allowing a social level entity to
> claim a thought or a whole species; all those present and all their
> descendants.
> 
> Our founding fathers were aware of the some of these difficulties and
> addressed them specifically in the constitution. 
> 
> "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
> limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
> respective Writings and Discoveries."
> 
> There are two qualifications on this "right". The purpose must be to
> promote the progress of science and arts and the protection offered is
> of limited term. Both of these stipulations get eroded every time Mickey
> Mouse is threatened with falling into the Public Domain. Steamboat
> Willie may have outlived Uncle Walt but keeping him in private hands is
> not stimulating Disney's ability to create.
> 
> Jack Vallenti of the Motion Picture Academy has argued that 'limited
> times' for copyrights should be limited to forever minus one day.
> 
> Every time congress extends copyright terms it robs the public of
> knowledge and the right to expand upon past works. Lawrence Lessig's
> books on this and his Creative Commons offers options.
> 
> This failure of capitalism has even pissed off the librarian's and
> placed them in the court with the government. It is a sad state of
> affairs when the force of the government is used justify restraining the
> ideals of the Public Library. Gulag Libros at taxpayer expense?
> 
> Now I could say something like, here is an economic system born in sin
> and currently aimed at killing libraries but that would be harsh. I
> think I will retreat to what I said at the outset, "The defense of
> capitalism on moral and pragmatic grounds is starting to fray at the
> edges."