Max Keiser Blog #2 Pre-Beta – The copyright reform movement

I saw this in the comments:

supporting one cause over another cause does not cancel out supporting anything, it simply leaves us all free to do what ever we can to make things better

Glad you brought this up, and I vehemently disagree.  I’ve had this conversation many times with activists from NGOs in countries all over the world. There are approximately 10,000 NGOs and approximately 2 million people who work for them who together control approximately 1 trillion dollars worth of the global GDP.  The reason why NGOs in the green movement, the social justice movement, the free software movement and others have not had the success one would have imagined given the passion and intelligence of those involved is because they lack economies of scale.  To successfully push back against corporate and political oligopolies requires a force that is equal or grater than the forces aligned against these movements.  I have said many times before that the reason Greenpeace is not making more progress for environmental justice is because they insist on showing up to gun fight with a knife.

I disagree that all activists should be free to pursue their own agendas, at their own speed as this approach guarantees non-traction against the entrenched forces of mediocrity bent on preserving the devilish status quo and ‘business as usual.’

Economies of scale and inter-activist group strategies that leverage resources are needed to successfully push back and expand the public’s domain against privatization and encroachment.

For me, strategically speaking, the copyright reform movement is the lynch pin activist cause that has the potential to unlock all the others.

Before we can ‘save the whales’ ‘save the forests’ or ‘save our schools’ we first need to save our ability to think and create outside of copyright controlled corporate cloisters of domination and dictatorship.

48 comments on “Max Keiser Blog #2 Pre-Beta – The copyright reform movement
  1. ewjohnson says:

    Stacy, I am a big fan, and feel that you make several good points about important principles of solidarity and leadership and organization.

    The fierce independence and mistrust of authority among the individuals who make up r3volutionary movements doth at the same time both motivate them and tend to make them ineffectual because they tend to wear the fiery hat all the time, even when dealing with one another.

    But note Rudy’s Rutabaga Rule – “once you eliminate your #1 problem, #2 gets a promotion”. 

    Some of these groups run out of “absolute truth” in their missions and continue coasting on ahead past the boundaries of truth and common sense, and find themselves to be the rightful recipients of opposition themselves.

  2. I agree. But this shouldn’t turn into a feminist war versus class diametric argument. Copyright exists for a reason and does serve a purpose right now. I agree that control of ideas does restrict the ability to pursue, remix, invent new and interesting concepts. In the same breath I think ownership creates responsibility and responsible people are much better than irresponsible people. In the words of Buckminster Fuller

    “You have to decide whether you want to make money or make sense because the two are mutually exclusive”

    Money in all honesty is the hammer to the rock of integrity. Copyright is about money and protecting the object created. Does it make sense?  Yes. When it becomes about money? No.

    If everyone plays their position the team wins.

  3. Herns says:

    Max you gold smoking maniac.

    Love ya show. Just wondering if u heard about the US 875 bill? Appartently wanting to take out organic farmers around the globe. not just the US. I’m a organic gardener here in  Sydney and i’m outrage. Your loyal listener and bond smoking friend.

  4. marcus says:

    i am the person who left the comment to which you refer , you say that you..” vehemently disagree ‘ with what i have said …. gosh , who cares whether you agree  or not ? a load of sophistry ,’happy easter’ to you to , in the meantime i am busy trying to find a home for ‘Barney’ a middle aged poodle rescued from death row local lost dogs home.  as somebody who grew up in the former DDR your arguments sound strangely reminiscent .  i do not agree  or totally disagree with your cause or the many important issues that it raises ,my engeries are directed elsewhere,animals are pretty fucking important piece or part of the overall equation  , then again i am not masquerading as an  intellectual or the peoples poet pretending to have all the easy answers . it’s always good to have input from others ,still i suppose that there are people who will always feel that they at the centre of  everything  no matter what others may be doing  to help . i certainly do not feel the need to broadcast myself each and everytime  time i go to the toilet. as for the expected reply ?  i guess it’s your site so you can do what you like with it . it’s your party ….

  5. Saarukka says:

    I don’t want to be a pessimist but I wonder how is this mission of “saving our ability to think” going to be accomplished.  Although I agree that it is the way we think inside the box the main reason everything now is allowed to happen. I have been also obsessed with these subjects and have been enjoying your provocative approaches everywhere in the media. But lets say for example Naomi Klein, who wrote the shock doctrine book. She did a massive journalist job and tried to explain (with a language people can understand, how populistic of her) how for example IMF power structures work. Still I wonder how does it feel for her to watch right now when power is still shifting  just a way that it has always been shifting.  From the church to the State or now from the corporations back to the State again. But does the State differ from the corporations and governement  institutions. They are just bunch of  people going from the next organisation to another. How is this happening even thow your in the f… BBC telling the people how this was played out. I think the “Margaritaville” described it very well when there was people on the street offering explanations to the masses how did this happen. “the governement kept the intrest rates too low” , “tell us what to do…” and so on…. but it would be intresting to find out how long a time you have to go back in the history to find out the point where did it all go wrong. So far I have managed to get my historical/hysterical obsession up to the poin where atimes (Henry C.K Liu) is explaining
    ….stampeded the Democratic convention with one of the most famous speeches in US political history:

    There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rest upon it … Having behind us the producing masses of this nation, and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

    For the first time since 1860, the 1900 election turned on a clear issue of major importance between the two political parties. The question of free silver had become symbolic of the conflict between capitalism and agrarianism, between the Hamiltonian concept of a nation dominated by big corporations and the wealthy elite….full article

    …or do we start from the point where the peolpe became the servant of the kings/religions etc… lots of reading to do…..when we get the answer to that question. Where did it all strated to go wrong? maybe we can start working out the solution…

    I am just beginning my journey to this sick game that has been played and apparently will be played for the years to come. But your show on the BBC was one of my eye openers. My optimism comes from the point that the people here workin 9 to 5 had very little if none to do with these current events. And I hope the information and the ingelligence you two have don’t get pointed out to a “conspiracy” corner where there is so much noise already.

    I’m sorry about all the spelling mistakes since “this is not my language”. Hope you succeed in your work to strangle the elephant. I’ll be the little ant who is chearing from the ground. “good Max and Stacy, you almost got them”

  6. Wolfgang says:

    In my mind, I can’t reconcile permenantly owning an idea with a free & creative society.  

  7. Ptah says:

    Greg Palast wrote a piece where he described the desire Dick Cheney has to secure power for himself. Palast said – paraphrase – that you have to want to ‘kick back’ as much as Cheney wants the power. You have to meet force with force in equal measure.

    The problem with the activist space is that it is fragmented across many concerns. Barney is way down the agenda and in the event he does find a home, Marcus will probably be doing this all again next week.

    But Marcus, you gotta agree, the notion of a strategic boycott, ie the coke boycott,  will not interfere too much with your efforts to help Barney. Activists thinking in a strategic way – as one – might make the kick-back that bit more attainable resulting in many possibilities which currently seem way out of reach.

  8. Thomas says:

    Maybe I’m wierd but I’m quite happy to pay $10 to see a movie. If I enjoyed the film I’ll even sit through the closing credits.

    I look at it this way;  a movie costs millions to make and a lot of people have to work very hard, yet all I have to do is pay a trifle sum.

    So why shouldn’t I pay my fair share?

  9. marcus says:

    hello Ptah ,..thankyou for your reply.   all this talk  about … ‘ pushing  back  corporate and political oligopolies ‘  etc [?]i’ll have to look that one up,bet i am not the only one , but maybe i am ? ] all this talk about using’ equal an opposite force ‘etc, quoting   statistics etc … boycotts etc are good etc  this is well and good and i agree BUT  it all takes  time ,its all BIG  picture stuff  and cann’t argue with anything like that, in the meantime’ Barney’ is on the top of my list as he does not have the luxury of waiting , [i’ve tried explaining all about’ ologolpies’ an NGO s’ etc  and how they work to Barney  but he simply doesn’t get it ? ] . i have also told him that next time he goes to’ gunfight’ to try and bring a a ‘gun’ instead of a ‘knife’ etc , he seems  pretty street smart anyway , maybe we’ll just buy him his own bookcase instead  ? there are enough guns and knifes and everyone wanting to be the tough guy. i wish you well . m

  10. Danny says:

    i recall from last december when myself,a group of friends and about a thousand other people were protesting against what was going on in Gaza. Needless to say we were angry.

    We protested every saturday for 3 weeks. The bombs stilled dropped.

    On the third saturday, with numbers dwindling and people getting fed up at the lack of results, an elderly man walked through the crowd and stood aloft. “For three weeks we protested and nothings changed! we must change our point of attack! We need to boycott Israeli goods, these people only understand money, we boycott their products, we hurt them!”  After a discussion, about 400 people marched on 3 supermarkets demanding the ceasing of them selling Israeli products. Many also entered the supermarkets, deliberately picked up Israeli oranges, went to the checkout, asked the staff where this product was from; Israel?? I refuse to buy this and just left it at the counter. this caused great delays. they hated it. eventually, 2 of the supermarkets dropped Israeli products. we’re working on the third.

    what i’m saying is we need a productive form of dissent. Taking from these bastards pockets is the best way to bring them down- because they are addicted to wealth creation. 

    PirateMyFilm seems a great cause to me. Not only does it get ideas together, its gets people together, and it takes from the pockets from the oligarchs. Win Win Win.

  11. max keiser says:

    Richard Buchanan
    current copyright law/terms has been extended to become ‘perpetual copyright’ clearly violating its stated purpose. Returning to 28 years as described in Constitution would be a good start. The Creative Commons offers this ‘founders copyright’ option that I will offer on PirateMyFilm for those who wish it.

    Thomas: Beyond the individual enjoyment of an afternoon at the cinema there is the legal framework goverrning the copyright industry that has inpeded innovation and crativity in the US.  The copyright industry as we know it is going down. One could short the stocks in this group and make a killing or maybe come up with some new ideas that will add some value.
    PMF falls into the later category.

    Marcus: Your dog’s real name is Troll, right?  Or, as W. used to say,  ‘that dog don’t hunt.’

    Danny: the boycott idea works and has worked.  Getting boycotts up the size where they attract hedge funds to attack offensive companies with short sales increases the efficacy of boycotts tremendously.

  12. marcus says:

    max ,..happy easter  to you to ,.. marcus                                       ps,…no  my ‘ dog don’t hunt ‘but he is alive and well and busted out of that hell hole of a concentration camp called keysborough dog pound.

  13. marcus says:

    max , troll for another ….m

  14. Thomas says:

    Max: I don’t see how copyright laws are impeding innovation and creativity. Could you elaborate?

  15. max keiser says:

    All creativity references, to some degree, creativity that has come before it.  Nothing is created in a vacuum. 

    By locking up creative works on corporate balance sheets for lifetime plus 70 years we have shrunk the creative pool from which to draw upon – by making referencing our own creative heritage, (collectively owned;  ideally, which is the point of PMF – to provide collective ownership to our works/ideas)  too expensive to reference.   Culture, as that word is understood, degrades.

    The net result of ‘perpetual copyright’ is to create a creative impediment that I believe you can point to as the primary reason American society has become an educational wasteland, an oasis for violence, and a safe harbor for copyright monopolists like Microsoft.

  16. Danny says:

    in terms of the ordinary man, a normal boycott is real, it is something he is doing personnally, he can see it on the ground. 

    When you talk about taking it to another level (massive boycott/ using hedge funds), here is where your losing joe bag of donuts. The stock market is not a real thing for the ordinary man who doesn’t own shares/stocks, but it is the ordinary man who is going to win this war. 

    I fear our biggest challenge is to convince joe bag of donuts that he CAN change things and this IS (Karmabanque, PMF) the way to go.

    I’m no economist or academic, but i trust your integrity.

  17. Thomas says:

    Max: So, not being able to use Mickey Mouse as a character in your next movie is stiffeling creativity?

    Because nothing in copyright law is stopping you from creating your own mouse character. Just don’t make it Mickey Mouse.

    Re: “perpetual copyright”, I think life-time of the author is fair?

    By the way what your talking about is generally called “Fan Fiction” and there’s plenty of that.

  18. Mr Supergeek says:

    Hi Y’All
    Nice one Danny…I know Max has dealt with these kinda issues for a while with Karmabanque etc,
     The idea of boycotting products has been around a long time Max just took to the next level.
    Surely even people with only average  common sense can to see how much power they have right now by the choices they make as consumers, Anyway most of that consumer stuff is designed to just jump down your throat and give you cancer -ya dig.
    I,m not sure how long this market fragility will last so people should really start acting now and vote with purchasing power and with their feet.
     I’ve been suprised at how many people have been angry with the banks but would’nt even consider changing to a different more ethical company.
    Also if this logic has been used in times of war by counterfeiting currency and undermining economies it must work quickly.
    Max I hope they aint getting to ya I noticed a few spelling mistakes in your last reply, Don’t work too hard.(i prefered the old message board where I could go back and edit my mistakes and figure out how to add my pic to the profile)
     peace and love, roses plants and flowers and power to the bunny wunnys.

  19. max keiser says:

    Mickey Mouse (1928) was pirated by Disney from Felix the Cat (1922), Milton Mouse from Aesop’s Film Fables (1920) and Ignatz Mouse from Krazy Kat (1914).

    Disney needs to return the favor and return the idea to the public domain from which it came. Not to do so is an act of intellectual aggression.

    The creative eco-system needs to breathe and keeping ideas locked up for lifetime plus 70 years is suffocating – when Disney sues elementary schools for drawings of MM on their walls, an idea that they themselves pirated from other sources, we all suffer.  

    Copyright, as it says in the Constitution should be for a ‘limited time.’  Perpetual copyright is not copyright as that law was understood by the founders.

    Copyright reform is a very seriouis issue in that it will hopefully stop the intellectual lobotomy being attempted by the copyright cartel excising our collective imagination for the benefit of a few. 

  20. Wolfgang says:

    I don’t commence studying IP law until next year (so this assertion may be wrong), but a friend who has already studied it her in AUS told me yesterday that all copyright/patent law is different in every country. If this is in fact the case, then can’t we reasonably assume that the monopolists will sooner or later seek to homogenize the copyright market with one set of global regulations, and if so, shouldn’t we be preempting this, and then begin working backwards? 

  21. relament says:

    The treatment of beings labeled ‘animal’ is the only way to tell whether you encounter a civilized person or society.  People continue to murder animals because of  ridiculous reasons like: I like the way they taste;  I was raised that way; I have to make a living; It’s a sport; There’s too many of them, etc., etc., yet they never think about TRYING not to kill them, or conspiring with people who do kill them by buying, selling, and eating them. One, though, should not expect a reward for “saving” another being. Your comments sound as though you are using morally sound actions for some type of vain enterprise of deception. Very suspicious. It has that holiday stench of christianity, an enterprise  far removed  from honesty. The moral treatment of other beings need a much better representative than you.

  22. max keiser says:


    PMF will introduce a new model of communal revenue sharing for creative works that I hope will make current copyright law obsolete.

  23. Thomas says:

    Max: Disney suing elementary schools is certainly condemnable. I’m all for a fair copyright system but I’m just a bit worried that some people want to abolish copyrights altogether.

    Anyway, we should really be using the term IP (intellectual property) if we want to include patents and trademarks in this coversation.

    Should the world have a unified IP system? (It kinda does with the Berne Convention)

  24. max keiser says:


    IP basically the same thing…
    the issue for me is less about uniform law and more about repealing the law back to where it was when in started in the U.S.   28 years should be the maximum for copyright protection.  

  25. Wolfgang says:

    You know, a small, discretely and well placed java like floating chat box would really help facilitate intelligent and thought provoking discussion between website author/user -/- user/user; if this site does begin to attract a collective of avant-garde thinkers, it would be a shame not to move forward with the implementation of such stuff imo…just imagine, mr max keiser himself speaking with stiglitz in open with fellow users of his website…more crazy things have happened, I’m fairly sure…the genuis of the collective will always outweight that of the individual, after all

  26. stacyherbert says:

    @Wolfgang . . . any ideas on programs to use?  I did have IntenseDebate on the site and while it theoretically looked good I could never get it to allow approved commenters to comment without passing through admin filter.  It was a nightmare for that reason, especially for anyone on the West Coast of US who would have to wait til the morning for me to approve the comment.  Then it messed up all the code on google.

    I have tried some other options since then but I haven’t found anything that actually works well . . .

    Would love some ideas on comment systems or chat boards that work well with WordPress 2.7

  27. Thomas says:

    Max: The only way that’ll happen is with Paul/Keiser 2012

  28. Mother Earth says:

    So the rick is to translate every ngo’s main problem into a copyright/patent problem.

    -hunger              :  Monsanto
    -illnes                 :  Glaxo Smith Klein
    -technology     : IBM/Sony/Phillips
    -resources        :De Beer/Shell/BP
    -crime                 :Shadow banking system?

    Then you can approach each NGO and unite them for your cause 😉

  29. Wolfgang says: 

    or, alternatively, you could just describe exactly what you want done during a video/tv & ask your minions to make it so;  value attracts 

  30. It is not just copyright, but all intellectual monopoly. And it is not just reform, but total abolishment that is needed.

    The economic case for intellectual monopoly is poorly supported. Periods of monopoly are periods of sluggishness, those without are periods of innovation. Consider: ‘Against Intellectual Monopoly’ – Boldrin, Levine; .

    Neither is there good purely ethical support. Sharing good things is one of the most moral actions possible: it adds benefit to all. It is almost a paradigm of ethics. So anything that restricts that must be unethical. Consider: ‘Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals’ – Kant; .

    Constraining creative work and sharing of goods to commercial structures is bad. Suiting those structures to benefit the few is even worse. Intellectual monopoly must go.

  31. max keiser says:

    Mother Earth
    This is what I am talking about, yes. That hidden within the NGO universe of concerns are economies of scale that are not being exploited.  As such, with no money, and with no additional effort, NGO’s could sweep aside the offending companies in a short period of time if they changed they way they think about the economics of activism.  My experience, and I’ve talked to the heads of NGO’s all over the world, is that they are more interested in punsihing ‘bad’ companies than actually chaning the underlying economics that feed the ‘badness.’   I also discovered that most so-called activists have a symbiotic relationship with bad companies in that they need each other.  The activist need the monthly stipend to stay ‘moral’ and the companies need the activists to tell them what they are doing wrong so that they can buy more insurance.   Ironically, since the cost of this insurance leads the companies to lower their operationg standards and commit more aggregious acts of anti-community welfare activsts would do more good than harm if they just shut up.

  32. max keiser says:

    Squire Headlong

    I like the argument for abolishment but for me, the way forward would be to repeal existing law back to the original 28 years.  At that point, an intellectual/creative ‘cambrian period’ would be unleashed and the world would look and feel a lot different.   I believe that as a species, we’d leap forward with a huge evolutionary jump to a new excited state of awareness and collective intelligence.

  33. max keiser says:

    ….what I call  the Holy Dial Tone

  34. Wolfgang says:

    Speaking of personal philosophies (the dialtone is eliciting the rousseau in me), here is a short thing I had to  write recently for an arts assignment. Thanks for the inspiration. 

    The inexorably accelerating, polyphonic culture of modernity (a permanently evolving complex of man-made economic and social institutions, geared towards life in the future rather than life in the past)[1] does not preclude the globalization of traditionally more local forms of social stratification according to (hereditary, financial and cultural) ‘class’; on the contrary, modernity underscores this fixture’s seeming permanency (it’s crippling high/low duality distinctly anthropomorphized in the above art works(Hirst’s ‘For the Love of God’ & Van Gogh’s ‘Potato Eaters’), whilst extrapolating it onto a universal canvas, at once both admired and feared by an increasingly unrestrained communitarian pool of information – the Internet. The interdependency of this entrenched duality – practically endemic to a ‘civil’ (money orientated) society, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau discusses in his Discourse on Inequality[2] –  means that it must remain to exist in some form; however, modernity may paradoxically curb its excesses, metaphorically and practically represented by The Greatest Depression, the epochal birth pangs of a new global reality that will manifest the sharpest ever simultaneous rise in human progress (innovation) and despair (primitiveness), both elements to be the result of personal self-assertion through the planned rational thought of an individual(s) amongst an increasingly diffusive though similarly likeminded mini-tribe(s) subsisting amongst, and seamlessly connected to, the broader now digitized global community, equally capable of producing and effecting tangible (goods and services) as well as non-tangible (ideas) assets, revolutionizing not any ultimately artificial political or social system, but human culture itself – the lowest common denominator. Although Rousseau and Friedrich Nietzsche, were they alive today, may lament the Internet, our dependency on it and the social interdependency and rapid flow across borders of vast amounts of information which it has allowed and continues to encourage, as merely the corrupt, mediocre result of the advanced economic development and technical expertise which they feared threatened to weaken the natural integrity and self-reliance of The Human, an avant-garde defender may alternatively describe this phenomenon as the new, post-modern ‘mode of vital experience – of space and time and of the self and others’,[3] representing the beginning of mans true emergence from his self-incurred, parochial and egoistic immaturity,    rejecting the metaphysics of materialism and opting instead to believe, and work according with, to and for, the organic nature of this new post-modern culture (the individual and communitarian similarly represented within it), which may visit any place at any time with anyone, free from the bondage of authorized beliefs.  

    [1] Giddens, Anthony, Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity (Stanford University Press: California) 1998, p. 5

    [2] Rousseau, Jean Jacques, A Discourse On A Subject Proposed By The Academy Of Dijon: What Is The Origin Of Inequality Among Men, And Is It Authorised By Natural Law? 1754 (accessed at

  35. marcus says:

    hello relament ,…. ‘.holiday stench of christianity ‘ [yikes ! ]purple prose indeed  , must be late where you are ?, who said anything about rewards ? what are you expecting from this ? as for christianty you must be joking !.  i suppose it’s a problem with threads or forums like this , everyone competing  for the attention  of the leader of the pack . so many  false assumptions behind your deeply flawed and highly  insulting comments, how kind of you to have to feel obliged to say such stupid  things to others  ‘ you certainly have a very high opinion of yourself compared to others ?.. “The moral treatment of other beings need a much better representative than you “. [yikes again !]….excuse me ,but who are you too judge ?  . i guess people like you never apologise to anyone ? . perhaps you are young and have just finished doing a course or something ? just trying out what you know or think you know on forums such as this ?  i have noticed on many forums that very few people from non english speaking countries do not participate for very long  [not because their english is not good enough ] but because many english speaking people ,or people who have been educated in english speaking countries have such a high opinion of them selves and are very rude and quick to insult others .. lula da silvas comments about this whole mess being caused by’ blue eyed pale skinned people’ sadly must be true, english speaking people always telling others what to do ,so certain of themselves ,that is how we got into this mess, i think that perhaps you should try and raise the bar a bit or at the very least try and raise the quality of your arguements being civil might help to start with ?, as for purple prose ,” easier to find an enemy ,harder to find a friend  “[dg]  but i guess you won’t have to think about it  ?     ciao ,  ciao .

  36. max keiser says:


    nice.. to put it in Freudian terms, what I see as a possibility is that the technology enables a spontaneous and mass loss of ego with the resultant global techno-consciousness being replaced with the techno-Id.  

    “Primitives” had this state of being.

    “primitive, magic-oriented consciousness all modes of existence, all beings, are alive. They are specialized forms taken by the One Life for the performance of a particular function.”

    The question being… To what end ‘functionality.’  We know this word has a new techno meaning unfamiliar to the primitives.

    Is it time to rethink this?

  37. Wolfgang says:

    We Decide. It’s time to rethink everything. This is the greatest moment in human history.  Elected not to include this in the aforementioned post, though it was a part of my original piece:

    …but human culture itself – the lowest common denominator (…) – so as to eventually realize and deal with the following:
    we are animals residing amongst the ecology of a microscopic planet positioned amidst an infinitely large black space, ourselves only capable of recognizing this (as well as all other things – from existentialism itself to the Great Myth of god) due to the physiological phenomenon of human consciousness, derived from the brain encased within our skull, a thing which, it may reasonably be said, we do not yet understand, though which complete (historical and actual)   understanding of holds the ultimate key to our new, emerging reality, the future of modernity.  

  38. Wolfgang says:

    The reason why I am going to leave Australia next year, return to my roots in France and study a Masters at Science Po is because of exactly this; I am going to dedicate my life to helping Decide.

  39. relament says:

    I don’t understand your comments. It is very confusing to read you. But I am pretty sure that there is a poodle out there that is either happy that you are being preoccupied on your computer or is in complete fear that you’ll run out of things to write.

  40. Culture is the ultimate opensource software platform. Our heritage, our everything, is drawn from an infinite pool of genetic cultural accidents. I think the term ‘pool’ is correct here.

    Thought experiment _ If we replace “ideas” with “genetics”, and think of culture as evolutionary system. Owning and withholding strands of DNA would result in the devolution of mankind. It wouldn’t make sense to make people pay to uses a genetic structure. We would live in a world of disease ridden idiots and Genetic pirates. People who could copy and distribute the DNA people want and need.

    Culture is our intellectual and spiritual DNA and to hold back strands that could enable us to evolve is simply absurd.
    Pre-buying a movie is a nice way to engage people, but half of the culture business is about presenting people with something they could never have had imagined on their own. Where is the mystery? The anticipation?

    Nature is the ultimate creative force, who does it pay? It doesn’t pay, it feeds back into itself, creating more diversity better design. Nature, as culture, is selfishly unselfish, it is a system of favours, a system of mutual appreciation and ultimately a matrix of a trillion trillion trillion moments of piracy!!!!

  41. Mr Supergeek says:


  42. Rich Hayes says:

    If copyright or IP is to be reformed then it must be proceeded with the abolision of  the corporation.

  43. ispice says:

    I believe ive heard Max say, “If you drive a gas vehicle you are a murderer” Would he say the same about people who purchase and support a copyrighted product?
    We are part of the planets sixth great extinction, 90%-95% of all life is predicted to fall this is the issue which our freedoms will be tried and tested. Monsanto’s patents can be ignored, what cant be is the ramifications of their GMO products such as terminator seeds.
    I also agree NGO’s are retarded for not using their economic power, perhaps as you and your message gain momentum and popularity the leaders of NGO’s will listen.
    I dont think copyright is not important, it is very. its just not as important.
    Nutrition for our brains inspires creativity, nutrition for the earth inspires biodiversity,and life.
    We have the ability to create and expand life not just humanity, that is our function. We reach egoless states with entheogens, boudarys dissolve, we have access to the source. No tech needed.

  44. Father Luke says:


    Max: Are you familiar with the idea of kopimi? I’d be interested in your take on that. . .
    – – 
    Father Luke

  45. StephenLV says:

    Stacy you might checkout

  46. Father Luke says:

    @StephenLV – that is sharp. Easy to configure, too. Good call.

  47. Dave says:

    ispice : We are part of the planets sixth great extinction, 90%-95% of all life is predicted to fall this is the issue which our freedoms will be tried and tested. Monsanto’s patents can be ignored, what cant be is the ramifications of their GMO products such as terminator seeds.
    Since most of the natural seeds are stored… or so I have heard, plus DNA in warehouses, the revolution should involve storming the patent offices like the Bastille and take back the world’s seeds.

  48. Software patents have little to do with “protecting an invention”, but they are a powerful tool of oppression.
    (The oppressed party being μISV’s and the ones doing the oppressing are the guys with the patents, think Microsoft, Adobe, Unisys, IBM and other large multinational corporations.)
    Software patents are an impediment to innovation and therefore detrimental to software consumers.
    Contrary to popular belief, a patent sought on an algorithm, method or GUI-aspect is usually not sought because the particular method is so ingenious that it is only natural to protect the awesome intellectual investment – on the contrary: Software patents are almost by definition applied for exclusively to monopolize the obvious.
    Software patents are a legal way to convert money into monopoly.
    If you really have invented something cool, of course you won’t apply for a patent, because then your competitors will be able to get a detailed description at no cost.
    Another patent myth is that a patent somehow protects against copying. Not at all. Copyright Law, as laid out in the Berne Convention, does that already. In countries that are a signatory to it.
    How Patent Law applies internationally is partly defined in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and signatory nations abide at least in part by the rules the US has stipulated.
    It is almost trivial to be granted a patent on virtually anything, partly because the US government makes hundreds of millions of USD on issuing them. It is much harder to actually enforce a patent.
    Like junk bonds, patents are avidly traded. Small companies, established with the sole purpose of filing for patents, employ dozens of freelance scientists from low-wage countries to apply for as many “obvious” software patents as possible. When hundreds of patents have been filed on pathetically simple things, the venture capitalists sell their company to a larger company, and that company subsequently sues, or threatens to sue a large software company like Microsoft. Microsoft then either settles the case (they paid one hundred million USD to Borland in a (partial) patent infringement case) or acquires the company. Software patents are big business.
    Innovation is stifled by software patents. It is much easier for a large software company to make competition impossible by dozens of patents that should never have been granted in the first place, and ensure enforcement by an army of attorneys, than continuing to stay ahead of their competition by steadily improving their products.
    Small independent software vendors do not have the thousands of USD/year it takes to apply for and maintain a patent, let alone the legal apparatus to defend their patent in court against the likes of Adobe and Microsoft. This means that software patents, in practice, are nothing but a vulgar instrument for the larger software companies to bully the smaller ones, regardless of the merit of the patent – and at the cost of innovation.
    This translates to sub-optimal software at inflated prices, and even worse, a slowing down of innovation in countries where they take IP seriously. The whole concept of “Intellectual Property” is ethically and logically questionable. Because when two people get the same idea at the same time, why would the one with the cash be allowed the sole benefits of that idea? Because he paid for it to the US government?
    The US government has monopolized the implementation of ideas in the software world, and is making a lot of money out of it. It threatens developing countries like India with trade sanctions when they don’t enforce US law in their own countries. Software patents are a prime example of “money making more money”, they have spiraled out of control at the sole benefit of Corporate America.
    Really innovative ideas in software are never patented. They are kept as trade secrets. Taking Go as an example, with a single exception (David Fotland), guys selling their Go programs don’t explain the details. Fotland has a well-paying day time job however, and the others live of their software.
    Does it go too far to call this the “patent mafia”? Not at all. Software patents are relatively benign compared to pharmaceutical patents that amount to “bio-piracy”. Companies rip off indigenous knowledge on medicinal plants, patent the active ingredient and monopolize the production of that substance worldwide for decades. The tribe can be lucky when enough of the medicinal plants remain, as extracting sufficient of the active compound to do first tests (before an efficient synthesis methods is developed) can decimate a population. Contrary to popular belief, nature-based medicines do not require hundreds of millions of USD in R&D, and patenting them and selling them with 99% profit is downright criminal from an ethical standpoint.
    The “inventions” that pertain to most software patents carry no R&D price tag. It can be argued that it is unfair that algorithms can be patented. Like the absurdity of patenting the Law of Gravity, patenting things that occur naturally in nature is highly questionable, however hard it was to discover them. An algorithm is, at best, the “best solution of achieving a goal”. Many algorithms are therefore not inventions, but common-sense inspired discoveries of “natural solutions”, and like the Law of Gravity, those belong to us all.

Watch the latest Keiser Reports:

Buy Gold Online
Buy Gold Online