My friend Regie Hamm gave me permission to share this recent post from his blog. My question to the community is how many of us really understand what is being proposed by this legislation and do we really understand the ramifications and claims on both sides of the issue?
Here are some interesting points Regie made:
What a great article and I couldn't of said it any better myself. I tip my hat to you Regie, and to you as well Brett for sharing this with us.
Regie gives his blessing to share as far and wide as possible, just as long as you don't turn it into a song.
As far as I know, Google and a lot of other tech stocks have never once paid their stockholders a dividend. Stop and think about that fact for a moment. Just let it percolate in your mind a bit.
WHY DOES anybody invest a dime in Google?
It’s because they believe that the price of Google and lots of other tech stocks will continue to appreciate. Google's business model is entirely based on increasing the perceived future value of their stock!
The idea of anybody ever needing to pay for content could easily diminish the perceived value of many tech stocks. Facts are completely irrelevant.
This is really entirely about supporting this massive house of cards built on perceived value and they will say absolutely anything and buy absolutely any politician to keep their Ponzi scheme going.
People seem to forget that Bernie Madoff WAS the head of the NASDAQ!
This is an extremely well thought out and written essay. I, like so many, have been waffling on what I think. Here are the things that influence my thought (along with this essay):
I don't think we've heard the end of the story. Too much at stake not to get this right. Praying for some sanity... Thanks again for the great thoughts, Regie. This desperately needs to get discussed.
Many people do not realize that the government already controls the Internet, pretty much completely. Just a little cursory reading up on ICANN and the ROOT ZONE FILE (I know, too techie) will make one realize the US government can and does do just about anything it deems necessary already.
The other side of this equation which needs to be discussed often is the fact that new generations have no concept of intellectual property or the fact that you should own what you create. It is not being taught. I happen to believe it is not taught on purpose, but that's just me.
People forget that the US military built the internet as a secure communications infrastructure for wartime use. The mythology of it being "free and uncensored" is kind of mind-boggling. Google censors our searches every time for marketing purposes. But lets not confuse tech industry propaganda with facts.
I was first taught about intellectual property in 1957 when my sixth grade class put on a radio play. I had another reminder when our senior class recorded a 10" LP to go with our yearbook that included an excerpt from a Peter Paul and Mary record. The engineer at a local studio refused to finish editing our tape until we had gotten a permission letter from "Paul" who had graduated from our school and performed for one of our assemblies with his group.
This is not something that was never taught and I'm inclined to agree that it's not simply an oversight concerning some obscure laws.
Also, if I am not mistaken, under current law, the offended party has a duty to notify the infringer if they feel they are being pirated or having intellectual property being shared or copied. Can anyone clarify this point?
Readers of this blog may want to check this out this FREE BOOK download. (89 pages...easy read). I was made aware of this by my friend and fellow NMP-er Ron Oates (thanks, Ron!)
William F. Aicher's book, 'Starving the Artist: How the Internet Culture of "Free" Threatens to Exterminate the Creative Class and What Can Be Done to Save It' is, from this point forward, free FOREVER as a PDF download.
Aicher says, "Yes, it sounds ironic - but if you read the book you'll understand the point here. I wrote Starving the Artist. It is mine. I alone have the right to determine how much it should cost. And now, with all the back-and-forth over property rights, I've decided it's more important for people to read my book and gain some perspective than it is to try to convince them to pay for it. After all, the book is not meant to preach to the choir. It is meant to be a thoughtful conversation on the value of intellectual property and how property rights encourage quality creative works to continue to be created.
Anyway, go here and download it..." http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/starving-the-artist/17431185
He continues, "Just promise you'll actually read it."
Thanks Steve, great resource and another voice to consider.