-Caveat Lector-
from:
http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.20/pageone.html
<A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.20/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City
Times - Volume 3 Issue 20
</A>
-----
Laissez Faire City Times
May 17, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 20
Editor & Chief: Emile Zola
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is MP3 the Future of Music?
by Estaban Hill
A sort of digital information distribution anarchy is developing inside
the Internet. An environment where no single man, small group, or
powerful organization—industrial or government—can control the
information distribution channels and thereby control the content of the
information released and contained in those channels.
As we all now know, there is more to the news and to truth than what CNN
or USA Today tells us. But traditional media have long relied on cost to
control content. To understand how this affects music, let’s first look
at how it works in the news media.
Newspapers
The cost of mass distribution of content of any sort has been extremely
expensive. Newspapers and magazines for example, require typesetting
machines, printing presses, cutters, folders, real estate for the entire
operation, and physical distribution methods like trucks and newspaper
boys, and government licenses in some cases. High capital costs of fixed
assets and daily operating costs require a large market share to sustain
the operation.
On the demand side, most people only desire to purchase a single
newspaper "package of information" in a single weekday for $1.00 or 50
cents. This creates fierce competition among "on-sale everywhere"
newspapers in a given city. The total number of choices is usually
limited. The high costs and limited market ensure there will be only a
few available "packages of news". These "packages of news" are
controlled by the small group who distribute them.
To control the distribution medium is to control the content.
Now, some would argue that the big men or women who own the current mass
distribution news monopolies do not totally control the content. That is
true. They typically report popular news, giving what the staff feels is
appropriate for its readership, along with a political bent, and usually
take care not to be too controversial. By following popular ideology,
they sell more papers. This is all done democratic style. Meaning the
individual customers do not get what they want, but get what 51 percent
continue to pay for and to swallow from the limited "packages of news"
that are offered.
The voices (distribution channels) are limited and controlled, because
no matter how much wisdom and truth my father had to say, the
controllers of bandwidth for mass distribution don’t think what he had
to say would help them sell to the masses.
That kind of control has been simple and concentrated in years past. Few
can afford their own newspaper company. This results in a limited number
of channels available to distribute these "packages of news."
Radio and Television
Television and radio have always had much more significant content
controls. There has always been a limited number of frequencies reserved
for the public, which were even hard-wired into the original "channels
2-11" television sets. This original inefficient analog use of these
frequencies led the government to establish in most countries some sort
of Federal Communications Commission. This public service company was
given the authority to issue licenses for the use of the sparsely
available frequencies. Licenses were granted to those the FCC thought
qualified as providing what the FCC believed to be a service in the
"best interest" of the public.
With the addition of an FCC, we expanded beyond a natural monopoly
created by high costs and a limited local market. We got a system where
the government decides who can deliver free-speech-containing audio and
video to the masses. Where licenses were issued, "free speech" was
nowhere near what was allowed to in U.S. First-Amendment protected
books. So mass free speech was limited by regulation, in the name of
public interest.
Maybe this seems necessary and logical to many people, at least to an
extent. They reason that we needed a regulatory body to insure that 100
companies or individuals are not simultaneously broadcasting on a single
channel, or broadcasting home videos of their children’s first birthday
party to millions of people. The majority market decided that it was in
the best interest of the public to see "packages of audio and video"
containing something more popular, more entertaining, something with
guns in it, maybe the Lone Ranger or the news, or maybe some disguised
girl-watching via BayWatch. So that advertisers would pay for the
moments in-between the dumbed-down titillating content to entice
purchases of their products. It was a logic that went like this: "These
TV cameras and towers are expensive, so first we must ask: What will
sell the most?"
To control the distribution medium is to control the content.
Cable & Satellite
With the explosion of cable and satellite TV, control slipped a little
and the market opened further. Cable and satellite broadcasts began
serving more of the public with a "customer style" service. It was
possible now to compete with the major one-size-fits-all national
broadcasters such as ABC, NBC, and CBS by creating TV stations that
served a particular audience, thus giving the customer more of a choice.
Examples include the Discovery Channel (science and nature) and MTV/VH1
(music videos). Twenty-four hours, seven days a week.
Those were the halcyon days before the World Wide Web, which facilitated
the separation of the content from a fixed, controllable distribution
medium (newspapers, TV, radio).
The World Wide Web
With the Internet, I have a choice of what I want broadcasted to me, and
what I want to broadcast to you. Before, even given the wider selection
of Cable TV and Satellite channels, we did not have an open choice, just
a wider selection. We had a bigger menu, more entrees than before, but
we couldn’t just order what we felt like eating.
A web server is a real-time, on-demand customizable broadcasting service
of "packages of information".
With the Internet, we can make our own menus, using the search engines.
We type in a topic, and we get a selection of choices, on virtually any
subject imaginable. The available sites or "channels" are growing daily
with a selection of broadcasters totaling in the millions and growing.
Millions of channels, most containing images and photos as well as
words. It may be only a short time before these same sites contain video
and audio, if the content could be better conveyed that way. What we
have as a result are millions of unlicensed mass distributors of
content.
Government reaction to subversive speech or regulated speech has been
largely ignored by many "users" of this free-speech medium. Attempts to
regulate the content of Internet sites in one jurisdiction is often met
by simply moving the web-server-based "packages of content" to a web
server located in another political jurisdiction, using just a few mouse
clicks.
Music
As we all now know, there is more to music then what Elektra Records,
MTV or the Radio decide to play for us.
Before the advent of the 45-rpm "record" in the early 1900's, a musician
who desired to make a profit from his music was limited in income to the
number of people that he was capable of audibly reaching with his
physical or instrumental voice, and to how many of those same people
were willing to pay him for the pleasure they received from his live
musical performance.
I see this very often here in Mexico. Never have I seen so many working
musicians. Where I lived in the USA, working musicians usually only
played at some bars, some parties, but mostly at concerts. Here, just
taking a walk down the street to a friend’s house on any weekday, I can
hear Mariachis performing live in private homes. On the streets, also.
You eat a taco at a small taco stand and someone walks up and starts
playing music. Restaurants everywhere have performers. It seems
musicians here are working to live, and not just playing for the big
jackpot prize of a Polygram Record Contract.
Better and better-known musicians, before recording technology, were
sometimes able to perform in a closed environment, using a physical
barrier, thus keeping the sound from escaping to the outside, so that
people desiring to listen were only allowed to experience the
performance after purchasing a ticket, which granted them permission to
enter the performance. This led to increased profits for the
well-advertised and better (or more popular) musicians. Even so, the
artists’ profits were directly tied to the protection the auditorium
provided, and by the physical inability of audio to travel well through
thick walls. Physical violence could be used to keep non-paying
listeners from entering the protected environment of the performance.
Later, with the advent of the audio recording device, musicians for the
first time in history could profit from their performances without
actually repeating them.
This was the birth of the music recording industry.
They could record their performances to a small vinyl disc and then
(using industrial-age manufacturing production techniques) produce
thousands if not millions of physical copies of the disc. Afterward,
radio stations could promote and actually create markets for the
musicians, and profits for the industry, in scope and size that could
never have been achieved through a physical musical performance tour of
the world.
The recorded records were copyrighted works, a legal protection granted
by governments to protect the works of creative individuals, so that the
right to record, duplicate, distribute, and sell would remain under the
control of the artists. The intent was to return the profit from the
creative works to the artist themselves and to help nurture an
environment which rewarded creativity through profit.
But musical artists today who desire to reach a mass audience must
contract at a profit of maybe $1 US dollar for every audio CD sold at
$12 dollars. Is this protection of the creative profits for the artist?
It does not sound like it to me. To be sure, the association is
voluntary. The artists could just play at restaurants for food, without
signing a contract with a big company. I see no "exploitation".
Nevertheless, the music industry has been able to maintain monopoly
prices through a monopoly on the industrial-age process of music
distribution. Not because they offered such great services to the
artists, but because they controlled the limited number of mass
distribution channels.
Those were the days before MP3, which will facilitate the separation of
the content (music) from a fixed controllable storage and distribution
medium (Audio CDs).
MP3
MP3 is a recorded high-quality audio (voice and music) file which can be
distributed over the Internet, and played on any multimedia computer
with the right sound card and speakers. It will revolutionize the music
industry.
The music industry distribution medium of audio CD's, or "packages of
audio information" (approximately 10 songs), maintains its monopolistic
high sale price through scarcity. The true value of a musical artist is
found only in what he (or the distributor) can persuade or force people
to pay for the privilege of listening.
To reiterate: the musician can force people to pay him to see and hear
him perform in concert, because of the physical barriers of the walls
that surround the area he is performing. There is no entrance, except
where paying customers may enter. Any other method of entrance into the
performance will be met by physical violence with security guards or
police officers.
What if the legal community decided that all musical performances that
took place in public should be guaranteed protection from unauthorized
listening? So that any person caught listening in a public place without
giving the artist his fair share would be arrested, thus insuring a
continual profit for the creative works of artists?
Such a law would be as enforceable as, say, an international law banning
chewing gum. In other words, absolutely unenforceable.
It does not matter how much of a "good idea" it is to have such laws to
protect the artists. People will listen without paying, because they
CAN.
Would we not all agree that if the musician wants protection from
unauthorized listening of his live performances, that he should find
some form of self-protection—by only performing for small groups of
people or for audiences that agree to pay for entrance into an
auditorium? And that he should stop crying about people listening to him
sing in public without pay, and about the police not arresting the
illegal listeners?
This is exactly the type of situation that is developing with the new
breakthrough digital audio format called MP3 combined with the Internet.
The crux of the matter is not morality, but enforceability.
This past century, adultery was considered a legal offense in the USA.
It was categorized as "alienation of affection" to the party "stealing"
from what was a legally-protected relationship of the offended spouse.
Now, many would consider adultery a moral offense. And many felt then
that marriage deserved legal protection under the law. Many believed
legal protection was a good idea. For the sake of argument and the Ten
Commandments, let’s say it is a good idea.
Ok. Enforce it.
It does not matter how much of a "good idea" it is to have such laws to
grant legal protection to marriage partners. The only protection a
relationship truly has is that of the strength of the spouse to the
spouse, a vested interest in each other. Self-protection through
commitment. No laws are going to protect that.
Audio Copyrights and Other Delusions
The same is now true of existing audio copyright issues. They are
absolutely unenforceable, and will not protect the artists.
Only the morality of the public will protect the music industry, and the
morality of the public does not hold much promise for existing copyright
issues. Let me explain.
The difference between the industry losing "billions" in audio CD sales
from the illegal recording of radio songs on Memorex cassette tapes, and
the "billions" it loses in lost sales from the recording of MP3 files is
this: MP3 files are easier to copy, distribute, share, and collect, and
the copies are digitally exact, and the selection is greater to choose
from, because there are thousands (and soon to be millions) of MP3
broadcasters on the Internet, instead of the limited selection of songs
that play on the local radio stations. Many believe there is no moral
difference between pressing "Record" on a cassette player, while
listening to their favorite radio or cable TV music channel, and hitting
the "Save to Disk" button on any MP3 file that they run across.
What is the difference between a broadcaster and a web server? Or
between a web server and a shared hard disk with public access? Is it
okay to listen to, but not record, MP3 files sitting on someone else’s
hard drive? If I give my CD to a friend to listen to, and he copies it,
am I a pirate? No. If I allow my CDROM drive to be shared on a local
area network, and someone copies the files, am I a pirate? No. What if
my CDROM of MP3's, or my CD audio disk, is accessible over the
Internet—am I a mass distributor of pirated music or just an on-demand
broadcaster?
If the criminality is in the recording of the listened-to music, then
the legal protection should remain on the side of the broadcasters,
whether they are Rock 95.5 FM with a broadcasting tower, or
192.168.0.211 TCP/IP with a 56k modem connection.
Imagine trying to prosecute every Internet user that presses RECORD to
disk when he hears a song that he likes.
Sure, there are music pirates who duplicate CD audio discs. The industry
is quick and harsh to respond with police, and to call on federal
agencies, because piracy cuts into their profits. In addition,
physically pirating and distributing audio CD's is costly and risky. The
same physical manufacturing methods, distribution methods, and outlets
are necessary for any pirate audio CD organization to profit, as are
needed for the legally-protected music industry. That makes pirate audio
CD companies easily susceptible to violence from the arm of the law. It
takes a beast of an organization to compete for profit, which therefore
makes the competing beast an easier target to locate and crush.
I don't need to get Madonna’s latest CD from her record company. I can
get it directly from her hard drive, and leave her a message with some
hair and makeup suggestions—along with $2 of embedded digital cash. She
gets twice the profit from me than if I had purchased her CD at the mall
for $10, and the industry sent her $1 out of the sale to me. Both
Madonna and I are better off.
The ironic truth is that the same speed, quality, and efficiency of
medium that makes digital distribution quick and easy has also
eliminated the need for pirates to create a massive distribution
industry. A large piracy organization mirroring the music distribution
industry is not necessary. One-to-one works just as well. Modem to
modem. One-to-one in the same room, one-to-one across the world, with a
lot of friends that also want the files. And it’s efficient.
To enforce the "protections of the law" on existing copyright violators
would throw half of the cassette-tape-using world behind bars. Only if
you can do that, will you maybe have a chance with MP3 music-industry
damage control.
It would a joke to think that every personally-recorded audio cassette
tape containing music is a "backup copy" from the original CD. So with
MP3. MP3 audio files can be transferred in minutes from one corner of
the globe to the other.
Entire CD's are offered now for free from many fans’ web sites.
Thousands and thousands of MP3 songs are now available all over the
internet, and piracy will exponentially grow out of control as the
bandwidth increases.
The logic is simple:
"Hmm. Do I want to go to the music store and pay $15 for a Madonna audio
CD containing 10 songs tonight? Or how about if I just get all of the
last 5 audio CD's that she has released from my friend Tony who lives in
Los Angeles. Tony has a high-speed cable modem and has given me access
to some of his hard drive space he has shared as a network resource for
his friends. The entire transfer over the cable modem for the 5 audio
CD's worth of MP3 music with 50+ songs, may only take me 15 minutes.
Maybe I will also select a couple of MTV Unplugged versions, and a
live-from-the-Acropolis version of a couple of the songs now, complete
with photos from the performance, and lyrics. Hmm... The mall just
closed anyway, and the pizza's just arrived... I think I will start the
transfer now. Hey, this connection is pretty quick, I may as well listen
while I download..."
The value that the music industry claims to provide, $10 of music value,
is thus shown to not be $10 of music value, but instead, $1 of music
value to the artist, and $9 of distribution value.
This $9 charge sustained by the distribution monopoly is no longer
protected, nor physically enforceable by technology (i.e., by the cost
limitations of producing the fixed controllable storage and distribution
medium—Audio CDs).
The Music Industry Reacts
Alternative pricing structures and methods are necessary for artists to
reach the masses and to make any type of a profit. Maybe we will go back
to the way it used to be. Maybe performance-based profit will again
become the only way for profit, as it can be protected. Maybe Madonna
needs to offer a value added service from her personal web site, such as
charging a meager 5 cents to Pay Per View her while she is rehearsing
her songs. But this will only become a practical option after a more
widespread use of micro-payment digital cash systems. At 5 cents the
market is bigger also, since more people globally will have 5 cents as
disposable entertainment income, than have $12.
The services that artists also receive from an industry record label
company are the advertising and marketing systems. That is an advantage
today, but it may not be as profitable in the future. The more
advertising and playing that the more popular artists and songs receive,
the more they are in popular demand. This is obvious on the current
underground MP3 distribution sites. They have the top, or more popular
MP3 songs that are in demand. This shows the added visibility and demand
that an artist can have, while it at the same time inversely scales the
amount of distribution.
This means that greater demand in an open environment will not allow you
to charge more then a service is worth. The more in demand, the more the
competition, the lower the price and quality of service necessary to
attract buyers of listening value.
That is the reason CD’s probably will not be able to continue to thrive
at $12 each. If the market reached through digital distribution scales
to include every net connection, growing extremely fast, over the next
several years, then a micropayment of $.10 per song to any particular
artist may become a practical distribution method for many artists.
Either a pricing scale like that, or your customers may decide that the
savings are higher to get it from somewhere else on the net maybe
underground.
The Matrix--Coming to an Email Account Near You
This problem becomes bigger and BIGGER, as bandwidth increases. George
Lucas recently requested additional assistance from the FBI in the U.S.
to help minimize Star Wars Episode 1 piracy. This movie is in demand.
Lucas’s posture is to present a threat of serious legal consequences for
web sites and video-tape pirate organizations.
In an incredible show of future things to come, consider the piracy
problem with the current hit movie, The Matrix, starring Keanu Reeves.
The movie is spreading across university high-speed networks as a
digital computer video file. They are sharing with friends on the local
campus, and with connected campuses on the same network.
It seems the morality of many college campus students in the U.S. has
hit an all-time low with this piracy. Or maybe they are just doing it
because…
They CAN. They have the bandwidth.
Someone makes an audio-cassette copy of a friend’s Metallica CD.
It’s the same…
They receive and forward the movie Matrix to their friends as an email
attachment. It saves time and money. You don’t need 2 VCR’s, or a blank
tape, nor do you have to wait two hours for the low-quality VHS
recording to complete. It leaves more time for studying. If it was any
more difficult than "Copy/Paste Video File", they would not do it.
Give broadband high-speed Internet access to the masses and the problem
will only scale. Scale something to the global Internet, and you don’t
have too much control.
What you see with MP3 you will see with MPEG2, which is the format used
in DVD video disks. Playable on a computer without a DVD drive.
A New "Protect the Artist" Scam
The music industry reaction to the availability, portability,
copyability, and "share with my friends the files on my hard drive"
attitude is that of industry protectionism, of course.
There is a problem with this audio CD protectionism. It doesn't work in
the digital realm. The market just wants the music.
Music industry leaders have been quick to demonize MP3, some even
suggesting we criminalize the actual computer file format MP3. They now
know that there is nothing that they can do about digital distribution,
as many industries are realizing. They know that digital distribution
and open formats are the way of the future. They are concerned that they
will not control it, or even be part of it. So what can they do? Well,
they are trying to offer a digital distribution format that can
"protect" the artists.
This is an absolute industry scam for computer audio companies to even
remotely suggest that they have an audio format that can protect
copyrights.
Many of the proposals are digital audio distribution methods and file
formats such as Liquid Audio. Liquid Audio uses a similar compression
format as MP3. The difference is that with Liquid Audio, when you
purchase a song over the Internet from say, Sony Music Online, personal
information about you, including your credit card numbers, are encoded
into the file. This, says industry experts, would hinder the pirating of
music, because people will not want this information to get out, so they
will "secure" their music. Not only do the Liquid Audio files have this
security "feature", the files will also play only through a special
Liquid Audio Music Player program. This program also has a feature that
can detect if a file has been copied, and it will only play the first 15
seconds of a song, then stop.
Ok, so first you are going to give me an audio file format that is not
compatible with my existing audio collection, my car audio player, and
my portable walkman-style MP3 player. Then you want to threaten to
release my credit card information to anyone who sees my audio file. Is
this what I want? My financial records embedded in my Bing Crosby
collection? So, if someone steals my CD, they are getting my private
records? Hmm... Hackers will start looking for Liquid Audio files to
steal, rather then just going through dumpsters looking for carbon
copies of credit-card-numbered purchases.
So the first thing I do is download a Liquid Audio to MP3 conversion
plug-in for my MP3 player.
Thank you. I just changed "jurisdiction" of the format where my digital
"packages of music" reside. I have granted my files anonymous status,
and they now have all the flexibility of an open audio format.
Some formats are boasting encryption to serialized players, and there
are so many other formats and methods being proposed. Well, folks, when
it all comes down to it THERE IS NO METHOD OF PROTECTION for the
Copyright! There is no such thing! Legislation cannot do it, neither can
a file format!
Let me explain. It's all 1's and 0's.
I don't care if you hook up a hardwired device with fingerprint and DNA
recognition and identification.
As long as my sound card receives a digital pulse of a 1 or 0, and
before it goes out to the analog speakers as a voltage to drive the
magnets, I CAN INTERCEPT THE DIGITAL INFORMATION, AND HAVE IT REDIRECTED
TO AN MP3 FILE! This is not hacking software of my dreams: this software
is available now! It records to an MP3 file ANYTHING, as a complete
exact digital copy after it hits the sound card, but before it goes to
the speaker.
The best thing the entertainment industry can do is start giving
morality lessons. Hmm...
Let’s listen to Marilyn Manson today kids! "I hate God, Death is Cool,
Don't Click the button that reads ‘Save this File As....’"
Where the Future Isn’t
The future of digitally distributed music is not in the electronic
purchase of music packages from large companies.
The future of digitally-distributed music is in the ability to exchange
50 cents of digital cash from my home in Buenos Aires, for music
performed live by a 27-year-old genius musician in Zimbabwe.
So why has the Internet facilitated mass distribution of "information
packages" in the form of published print material (books, for this
example), and not caused a devastating blow to the book-publishing
industry as we now know it?
The answer to this question is simple.
Music is already mass-distributed in digital format direct from the
artists’ studios, and all that is needed is a simple program that
converts the existing 1's and 0's on the audio CD to your preferred
audio format, say MP3.
Books are sold on paper. The time and effort for a reader or purchaser
of the book to convert a book into a digitally-distributed format
without the original book manuscript in, let’s say, Microsoft Word
format, is extremely time-consuming. The two methods available are: 1)
Manually scan a picture of every page and distribute 300 scanned pages
as TIF or JPG image files. This is not practical at this point, and very
time consuming. 2) To do OCR (Optical Character Recognition) on the
pages. This involves an intelligent computer program that looks at the
scanned images, and tries to recognize the words and convert them to a
text format such as HTML, RTF, or Microsoft Word. In my experience, even
though the OCR Software Companies claim 99 percent accuracy, I have f
ound it somewhat lacking and requiring a thorough read through with many
inaccuracies needing manual correction. This process is still easier
than re-typing an entire text, but the process is far from the
simplicity of its audio video cousin method of just "Press the CONVERT
to MP3 button".
Although many reference and training Books in HTML and PDF format are
appearing on many Pirate WAREZ ( illegally-distributed software) sites
on the Internet, they seem to have existed in an already digitally
released form, as directly released from the publisher. These were not
scanned copies, or OCR conversion copies.
Books need to be mass distributed in digital form before we see the same
industry upheaval as we are now seeing develop with the MP3 format.
The Money Monopoly
The music monopoly parallels the government money monopoly.
As we all now know, there is more to money than a devaluating Peso, or a
Federal Reserve Bank green piece of paper.
A green 20 denomination US dollar or Peso Bill, is what we call fiat
money. A piece of paper, a "package of value" that represents a form of
"stored value".
This stored value contains and maintains its value according to the
money manager’s policies and actions. Governments are essentially
monopoly issuers or broadcasters of this form of "stored value". If you
want a little taste of the digital advantages of electronic financial
services, the industry has provided you with Internet-enabled credit
card transaction banking services.
The efficiency of electronic transactions is known by the banking
industry and government. They like it very much. Just like the music
recording industry, they know that the digital way is the only way. They
are just concerned that they will not be part of the action when people
start using the same technology in a more efficient, self-serving way.
Initial banking-industry reaction to the need for electronic
transactions has left us with sort of a crippled Liquid Audio form of
electronic financial services. Our transactions are recorded with the
serial numbers of our cards, our purchasing habits and physical
movements compiled into databases, and our transactions only accepted by
compatible players in the banking industry monopoly.
Those were the days before privately-issued digital, anonymous cash,
which facilitated the separation of the content (stored value) from a
fixed controllable medium (government-issued Paper Bills).
So the first thing I do is to have incoming "stored value" converted
immediately to a better-managed format of stored value. In Mexico, many
businesses request payment in US Dollars instead of Mexican Pesos.
I might request payment in e-gold, or next year maybe an anonymous
Digital Monetary Trust buck.
Thank you. I just changed "jurisdiction" of the format where my
money—digital "package of value" resides. 0’s and 1’s.
I have given my money anonymous status, and have all the flexibility of
an open anonymous digital cash format.
But... but... It's not fair.
The banking industry will cry: "Anonymous private digital cash is bad
for government-issued money and the controlled banking systems!" As I
silently respond: "Government-issued currencies are bad for my stored
value! I need financial services, not exploitation!"
With future e-cash type services, I can send you .0001 cents or
$1,000,000 for the services you performed for me. With efficiency,
convenience, privacy, freedom, and security. Not just security in terms
of from-me-to-you travelling, but security from the economic rape of a
manipulated fractional reserve banking system.
Let’s not use credit cards—let’s avoid a 12-percent bank charge added on
top of a devaluation of 4 to 20 percent.
Besides, I cannot take a credit card "Liquid Audio" transaction. I need
to be a special "player" for that. Only certified "conventional"
companies with long banking histories and references can get accounts
for that. That is not an open money system.
Interface me. Enable me to transact as I do at a bubble gum machine,
place in 5 cents and get a piece of gum.
Let me do that with my purchases 10,000 miles away.
I need efficiency. This means Alan Greenspan will not be in my financial
equations any more then any government Ministry of Music official has
anything to do with what I play on my guitar.
The undefiled private exchange of value for value.
The future of digital cash is not in the electronic purchase of products
from large companies.
The future of digital cash is in the ability to exchange 50 cents from
my home in Buenos Aires for a digital service performed by a 27-year old
self-employed JAVA programmer in Zimbabwe.
This is the future:
•If a law or a technology cannot stop the free exchange of information
from billions of unlicensed individual broadcasters;
•If a law or a technology cannot stop illegal cassette recording and
cannot protect copyright holders;
•If a law or a technology cannot stop the private broadcast of MP3
files, spreading over communication channels faster than a digital Ebola
virus;
•If a law or a technology cannot stop the private exchange of any form
of data between individuals in the same room or across the globe.
What does this mean about the choice of the format and distribution
method of my "stored value", my money into an alternative format?
If you can’t stop the world from using MP3, then you cannot stop the
world from using another computer file format that holds "stored-value"
or digital cash for their assets.
The only alternative for currency-issuers is free market competition.
Kill Files
Think about it.
If ANY content is separated from a monopolized and controlled mass
distribution medium, we have digital FORMAT and DISTRIBUTION anarchy.
Another name for "anarchy" is "free market".
The only method to stop the anarchy in the market of the free exchange
of digital data is to embark on a Luddite mission of book-burning,
programmer-killing, computer-elimination, which, in the process, would
be suicide to the very Beast on the mission. Digital systems were not
such of a problem to the larger institutions, until the people started
to choose their own file formats, protocols, distribution and storage
methods. The cat is out of the bag. We as a species have figured out how
to convert printed material into distributed documents of HTML, how to
convert sounds into MP3, and how to "store value" inside of encrypted
codes creating anonymous digital cash.
No matter how "good" of an idea some may think it is to compete against,
regulate against, make illegal, or morally demonize the use of
non-traditional, non-controllable distribution and storage mediums.
Enforcement of the old way "because we think it should legally be this
way" will be very difficult, as these efficient systems continue to
undermine centralized control and power.
Consider this as a situation of parties that are not exchanging the
copyrighted works of others, but are conducting business as usual.
E-commerce. Exchanging legitimately earned and labored stored value for
stored value, both with a vested interest in each other, a relationship
with each other, and with privacy of their associations and
communication channels being secured.
This holds even if the governments of most nations outlaw all music and
digital cash, and an argument is made that "it cannot go mainstream".
The issue of mainstream is irrelevant. I would like to question what is
"mainstream"? Many drugs are illegal in the USA. Illegal drugs are not
considered by most to be "mainstream", yet they are still an extremely
huge multi-billion dollar a year industry. It is a service that people
seem to want. Not all people want drugs, but enough to make it one of
the largest sectors of the US economy and an extreme profit making
businesses.
Now… Imagine if drugs could be sent through encrypted Internet
connections. Does anyone think that regulation of encrypted drugs would
hinder the exchange of digital drugs? No.
It comes back to the moral question: Do people have a desire to listen
to digital music or use anonymous digital cash, and moreover how many of
them WILL move their stored sounds or stored value into alternative
competitive open music and money systems.
The market is here. Efficiently-evolved systems are screaming out their
battle cries against the "old way". I seem to hear the sound of
alternative stored value choices. It’s music to my money.
So while we watch large institutions stumble in trying to deal with some
of these emerging technologies, I think it is safe to say, that the
enforcement of "Law and Order" on the content of digital music files (in
my example, MP3 files) will closely mirror the enforcement of "Law and
Order" on the content of anonymous digital cash files.
The free market is here. Get used to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estaban Hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) says he is "currently available
for many types of digital services including: 3D Animation, Video
Effects, Morphing. Compositing, Broadcast or Web. 2D Paintbox,
Backgrounds. Pagemaker, DTP. Magazine Covers. Presentations, PowerPoint,
Self-Running. Internet Web Pages, Sites, Applications, Integrated
Databases. ColdFusion. Security Consulting. Encryption, Software, Proxy
Servers, VPN Systems, PGP. Multimedia - Kiosks, Tradeshow Booths, Group
Meeting Game Shows. Research. Reports. Training. And much more of co
urse..." His ICQ number is ICQ: 2764075, and his web page is
http://surf.to/globalgfx.
-30-
from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 20, May 20, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by
Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc.
Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar
All Rights Reserved
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
