It seems to me that the problem essentially lies within the concept of IP (Intellectual Property), which concept seems to have been picked up by Big Corporates and other rent-seekers, and legally re-engineered into a set of weapons (e.g., copyright, patents, licencing, artificial barriers to entry) to create/maintain monopoly or oligopoly positions and guarantee resulting revenue-streams in perpetuity, in the form of a toll tax that we must all
This sort of thing is happening where democratic and capitalist religio-political ideologies prevail, but it could (and has) happened in one form or another where socialist-communist and Fascist ideologies prevail.
This taxation effectively manifests as a seemingly hostile and extortionate act against consumers, and it has been legalised.
For a worst case example, you probably need do no more than look towards (say) Monsanto and GM corn and the injustices they have forced upon hapless farmers in, for example, the US, and India.
There is an ironic joke somewhere in here in the form of the term "Consumer Protection" - which is apparently a myth to pacify and make us feel comfortable whilst being held ever more still in the legal straightjackets fabricated by our lawmakers, so that the large and small parasitic leeches can continue to fasten and feed ever more voraciously on us consumers, who are at the bottom of the food chain.
This is classic corporate psychopathy in action, once again refined and sanctioned by statute/law. We are already turned into serfs.
The recipients of the IP taxes are usually in the form of fat, greedy, lazy, selfish, uncaring, unproductive corporate psychopaths. They stifle creativity
by taking ownership of its product and then taxing us for it and prohibiting the creative production or use of anything similar, in perpetuity.
We should not complain, as they are merely performing very well and in the exact manner that we (society and lawmakers) set them up to do. The individual - the serf - has apparently embraced and condoned
his own serfdom.
It is only a matter of time before these psychopathic corporations, in one form or another - e.g., maybe as a "benevolent" World Government - exact further tolls on citizens. Think a tax on carbon, on air, on potable water, on a patent on the human genome - i.e., on life itself. It has arguably already started.
We seem to intuitively or instinctively know that this is ethically/morally reprehensible, but at the same time we seem to be powerless against the Masters that we have made for ourselves. Serfdom = slavery.
What can you do about it? Well, you don't have to accept it. You could try being disobedient or rebellious against the status quo
, but that could bankrupt you with fines, or land you in prison, or both. This is the remorseless force exerted on the slave.
However, there is still one place where - for the time being at least - we can allow ourselves to live in freedom, and that is in our minds.
Serendipitously, I came across this post today, that seems to put this kind of point across much better than I can.Nina Paley Explains Intellectual Disobedience
Nina Paley Explains Intellectual Disobedience
from the people-are-going-to-create-and-share dept
Nina Paley (filmmaker, activist, occasional Techdirt contributor, and many other things) has given an interesting interview with O'Reilly's Mac Slocum, in which she talks about the concept of "intellectual disobedience" -- merging "intellectual property" with "civil disobedience." Nina argues that if you believe in creating and sharing culture these days, copyright infringement is almost necessary, and people shouldn't apologize for it, but should stand up for what they're doing:
"A lot of people infringe copyright and they're apologetic ... If you know as much about the law as, unfortunately, I do, I cannot claim ignorance and I cannot claim fair use ... I know that I'm infringing copyright and I don't apologize for it."
The phrase "intellectual disobedience" has a call-to-arms ring to it, but Paley characterized it as an introspective personal choice driven by a need to create. "It's important for me as an artist to make art, and the degree of self-censorship that is required by the law is too great," Paley said. "In order to have integrity as a human being and as an artist, I guess I'm going to be conscientiously violating the law because there's no way to comply with the law and remain a free human being."