Dearest Tuukka, I am not sure if I touched a raw nerve here. If I did, I apologize. As far as I can tell, this is a friendly conversation over a cup of coffee. I have no intention of character assassination, and I hope you feel likewise. If not, we can stop this conversation if you want. I am exploring the clarity which MoQ provides, not trying to push through some kind of agenda.
With that said, I will continue to respond to your remarks in the attempt to clarify my understanding of what you propose concerning the piracy of music and other forms of art as provided through information technology. On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, > I didn't say artists shouldn't get any money. Artists are allowed to > capitalize like others. I don't require everyone to be like me. I don't > think its virtuous to be poor, so grow some self-esteem. Just because you > have money doesn't mean everyone either befriends you because of the money, > or is envious of you because of the money. Yes, I agree > > The point is, piracy is not a real problem for artists. Despite piracy, > musicians make more than ever, and have you ever heard someone complaining > cinemas are going out of business? Well, everyone can see cinemas are not > going out of business. So instead, the industry tells you to care about the > "suffering artist" while ripping off the both of you. It seems to me that when we take into account the vast number of struggling musicians, there is a large discrepancy in how much they profit from their art. I am certainly not a proponent of the music industry since that is what creates this discrepancy. Marketing has great power. If only certain artists are played on the radio, then that is where the sales are. I am a big fan of public (listener supported) radio since this diminishes the power of the marketing folk. I do not listen to industry, especially to Hollywood. You have the cinema concept wrong, cinemas are suffering, and may be a thing of the past. I find this too bad since most of the experience of a movie is sitting in a large theater with "group experience". The energy of a movie cannot be explained by the movie itself by any means. There is a tendency however to watch movies at home, and the march towards isolated brains in front of a computer marches on. We'll see where this goes. > > "Are people really actually pissed off because Wikipedia is going "black" > for a day? Because people feel that their First Amendment rights are really > being threatened? Or is it because they're afraid of losing free access to > Deadwood and the Black Keys? Or are they worried that the next YouTube won't > be able to build a business model off the unwitting investment of > copyrighted material that users uploaded for free while investors and > start-ups glibly proclaimed that they couldn't be responsible for actions > users took? Wikipedia has thousands of volunteers and brags that they keep > the site's content accurate. Why can't they regulate more rigorously for > copyright violation, too? Too much of a bother?" Tuukka, as far as I am concerned Wiki should go black for a month. It has a stranglehold on information right now. Together with Google, Wiki has a high control over what knowledge is disseminated. Take this example: A while back the grocery store unions from the three big grocery chains in California went on strike. People did not want to cross the picket line so they went to alternative smaller stores. What they found was a renewal in the concept of diversity. These smaller stores have continued to profit even when the strike was over. I think the same can be said for information on the internet. A blackout would force consumers to look of alternatives, otherwise they continue to slide into an ever dominated source of information. Being a scientist, I find many inaccuracies on Wiki concerning scientific "fact". However, the power of Scientism is such that people do not question it and assume it is all true. This is a shame since there are many better sites to draw from. Wiki claims they provide free information, but you will notice that anybody can post there. Once they do it becomes fact. This phenomenon is used incessantly for politics and character assassination in this country. They put free speech above integrity, gab above morality. > > It _is_ too much of a bother. It's so big a bother they may have to close > down YouTube because they just can't do it. If they nevertheless manage to > do it, is it an achievement? You get a nanny state. A nanny state of > information. Welfare states are just nanny states of money. I fully agree with your condemnation of a nanny state. This is where we are headed in the US. It is much more profitable in this country to be a victim than to be responsible. The government's intrusion on what we eat, what we do in our homes, and how we should behave has reached remarkable levels in a country that professes to be free. The US is not free, many of the elections here are rigged. > > "If, as the claim goes, the social media masses were able to overturn the > regime in Egypt, they can certainly turn the tide on Internet piracy. " > > Isn't this a smart man, Mark? Isn't he? :D Tuukka, you will find as time marches on that the overturn of the regimes will lead to stronger government control in those countries. This is a social issue. How can there be vigilance over piracy when the pirates are doing the monitoring? The wolf is in charge of the chicken coop. Sure we all have grand ideas on personal freedom on the internet. But just look where such grandeur about American freedom has taken us. Did you know that carbon dioxide is now a controlled substance in this country? > > http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/reverb/2012/01/quit_whining_about_sopa_and_pi.php > > Mark: > "One of the things I don't like about getting money from the government is > that then I may become dependent on such government." > > Tuukka: > Ha ha. :P Independence of the government, yeah right. Maybe you'll concern > yourself with real world matters when you're in jail for forgetting to put a > password on WLAN. Except that it's too late then, because you can no longer > vote! Yes, the government would put me in jail, because that is what they do. I am strictly against government control of the internet. This is something that Obama is trying to do! I am sure you are aware of this. The current government has been trying for some time to regulate free radio talk shows. I am not a big fan of such shows, but I feel they should be allowed to say what they want. Some rules should apply of course, but not the draconian rules that are trying to be pushed through. I believe in small government, and an increase in personal responsibility. I advocate morality over laws. > > Mark: > "I made the most money painting houses. It was fun too. The trick is to be > really fast." > > Tuukka: > What on earth could you possibly believe you are teaching anyone here? Maybe > you think YouTube and Wikipedia could moderate the content sent by millions > of users, but "the trick is to be really fast." Congratulations! Your > density has gotten nuclear. This was just a personal thing, I was not expecting anybody to learn anything from it. Please forgive me if you were insulted by that revelation. I was simply pointing to efficiency. Maybe I am going to explode! :-) > > Mark: > "By the way, I have gotten several million dollars in money..." > > Tuukka: > Thanks for clarifying you got the millions in money instead of bullshit. > Apparently money also made you a dick. But you have hope! I acquaint, > befriend or am related to a few people whose wealth is in the top 10% of > population, and none of them is as displeasing as you. I am sorry that you find me displeasing, but that is your choice to make. The point here was that I requested such money to do good. It did not make me rich, except to provide me a salary so that I could continue my work. I have a wife and two children to support. One of them is going to Duke, which is not a cheap college. If I am a dick, it is because I have causes that I believe in. Ameliorating human suffering is one of those causes. Please consider me a dick in that case, I will take it as a compliment. > > Mark: > "I think of what I do is a hobby. I have lots of them lately I have been > working on alchemy in the garage. It's not what you think. I am not trying > to turn things into gold. Neither was Newton, or all the great alchemists. > It is about transformation, and it has much to do with Quality." > > Tuukka: > Do you think I'm some fool? I know alchemy isn't what you think I think it > is. Thank you for saying that Tuukka. The comment was made as a general statement for all. And no, I do not consider you to be a fool. I find you to be well educated. I am not sure why you would think that I would consider you foolish. Have I not answered somewhat intelligently to your posts? I wouldn't do so if I thought they a clown. Calm down! Your anger is not directed at the right avatar. I am one of your supporters as I thought my posts to you sounded. Cheers, Mark > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
