from:
http://zolatimes.com/V3.20/Music_MP3.htm
Click Here: <A HREF="http://zolatimes.com/V3.20/Music_MP3.htm">Is MP3 the
Future of Music?</A>
-----
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 un
licensed 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 found 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 course..." 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
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
All My Relations.
Omnia Bona Bonis,
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
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
