YouTube/Google vs. Viacom

Viacom is suing Google and YouTube for copyright infringement. As I've said before, "intellectual property" is not property.

If I steal your car, you may say "WTF? Where's my car?" My theft directly injured you. For intellectual property, that's not true. If I copy your song or movie, you may still use the original.

"Intellectual property" creates problems for any user-generated content website. The site owner can be responsible for what the users do. "A business owner is responsible for what customers do!" is an example of corrupt State law.

YouTube's original management noticed what videos were most popular. Many of these clips were copyrighted. However, they did not take down those videos. They decided to wait until they got a DMCA takedown notice. They did comply with takedown notices. They did not remove popular videos that turned out to be copyrighted. Is that illegal?

For example, clips of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report were placed on YouTube. It isn't clear that actually injured Viacom. The free advertising might have been a net benefit.

Due to the way copyright law works, Viacom's lawyers have to act like jerkwads. If they don't aggressively crack down on copies, they may lose their copyright claim.

Another problem is that there's no clearcut legal standard for "fair use". Am I allowed to use a 5 second clip in my own video? What about 30 seconds? 3 minutes? 10 minutes?

Another problem is that a show can't intentionally allow sharing. For example, Stephen Colbert probably benefited from having his videos shared on YouTube. Videos shared on YouTube increased his personal reputation. Working for Viacom, he has no choice but to follow their corporate policy.

Another problem is statutory damages instead of compensatory damages. With intellectual property, there is no obligation to show actual loss of income. Instead, damages are according to an arbitrary punishment scale. Google/YouTube might be forced to pay $1B, even if Viacom suffered no actual losses. It is possible that Viacom profited overall, due to free publicity from YouTube.

Another example of statutory law is non-crimes like possession of marijuana, tax evasion, or operating a business without a license. In order to be a crime, an action must injure someone else. For statutory crime, there's an arbitrary punishment scale unrelated to actual losses.

A pro-State troll says "Without intellectual property, how will artists get paid?" A more accurate statement is "Without intellectual property, how will all the State middlemen get paid?" When a mainstream media corporation publishes something, they demand you sign over copyright. Most of the money paid goes to the middlemen, and not the content creator.

Sometimes, via intellectual property, an artist loses the right to perform/publish a work they created. If you publish a book and it's out-of-print, the publisher might not be under any obligation to republish it; you can't publish excerpts without their permission.

Intellectual property law and State restriction of the market creates theft opportunities. The middlemen earn economic rent, at the expense of people who do the real work.

It's the usual pro-State troll argument. "Without government, who will build the roads?" Similarly, "Without intellectual property, who will pay the artist?" More generally, "Without violence, how can X earn a living?"

Without intellectual property, people will pay directly to support artists they like. They won't have to pay tribute to a middleman.

Viacom executives and Stephen Colbert earn huge salaries due to their State-backed monopoly. I would have a hard time getting the mainstream media cartel to broadcast and promote my work, even if I could get a larger Internet-based audience.

The State information monopoly creates an artificial shortage of "talented well-known artists". The Internet is leveling the playing field somewhat. It's still really hard to bootstrap an Internet-based business.

Even though I probably could make a better show than most mainstream media performers, the State restricts my opportunities. I'm going to try self-publishing on the Internet soon.

The best model for an Internet-based business is donations from fans, or tickets to live performances. People should support artists who release their work for free on the Internet, with no copyright restrictions.

Intellectual property laws cause more problems than they solve. In a really free market, there's no such thing as "intellectual property". Only a State violence monopoly can prevent people from copying songs and ideas.

Who Murdered Benjamin Franklin's Grandson?

Once in a while, I read a story that makes me think "ZOMFG! Why didn't they mention that in my State brainwashing center (school)?" The story of Benjamin Franklin Bache is very interesting.

Benjamin Franklin Bache inherited his grandfather's newspaper business. According to official State history, Benjamin Franklin is one of the heroes of the US Revolutionary War. Benjamin Franklin died in 1790, before the new Federal government started abusing its power.

The early Federal government passed a lot of bad laws. Benjamin Franklin Bache continued his grandfather's tradition, and questioned these bad laws. He even questioned the legitimacy of the Federal government.

There was an interesting conspiracy theory published by Benjamin Franklin Bache. Allegedly, the British intentionally lost the Revolutionary War. In exchange, George Washington and other insiders agreed to form a strong central government sympathetic to Britain's interests.

One of the first laws passed by the new Federal government was the creation of a central bank and the adoption of the gold standard. This gave the European banksters economic control over the USA. The first US central bank was a really bad law, exactly as the Federal Reserve is evil in the present.

The gold standard was evil in 1787, because other forms of money were outlawed. Many states had their own monetary systems. Local alternative currencies were declared illegal.

There are no gold mines in the eastern United States. A silver standard would have made more sense than the gold standard. In 1787, the European banksters had a near monopoly of the world's gold supply.

The new USA had a gold standard, a central bank, and State-regulated/subsidized fractional reserve banking. This gave the European banksters complete control of the USA monetary system. The banksters sent spies to the USA, posing as immigrant businessmen setting up a bank. The USA had achieved superficial political independence, but not true economic independence. Some people say that the creation of the Federal Reserve and income tax in 1913 was the final victory by European banksters lobbying to quash the freedom the Americans had won.

The first Treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton was a spy for the banksters. Geithner and Paulson are obviously tools for the banksters. Alexander Hamilton was no different. (Does that mean Aaron Burr really was a hero?)

Another interesting bit is the Jay Treaty, where the US politicians essentially bent over for Britain. This law was questioned by Benjamin Franklin Bache.

Benjamin Franklin Bache questioned the legitimacy of the new Federal government. At the time the US government started, the two political factions were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists knew that the new Federal government was a bad idea.

The Anti-Federalists are the reason that the original US Constitution had so many clauses protecting individual freedom. They were concessions to the Anti-Federalist faction. The Anti-Federalists demanded the Bill of Rights, in order to support the new Federal government.

Viewed this way, the US Constitution was not a brilliant document. It was a compromise between the two political factions at the time. The State parasites knew that the key was to get a strong central government with a violence monopoly. Once a State violence monopoly is in place, its evil power will only grow over time.

With a violence monopoly, then individual freedom can be gradually eroded, as actually occurred. All the clauses of the original Constitution that protect individual freedom have been nearly completely eroded.

You learn about the Alien and Sedition Acts in your State brainwashing center. You don't learn that they were used by President Adams to silence his political opponents, the Anti-Federalist faction.

The Alien and Sedition Acts expired after Adams' term as President ended. If Adams' faction did not win in the 1800 election, they didn't want the law used against them.

The Alien and Sedition Acts made it a crime to question the legitimacy of the Federal government. It also was a crime to question the morality or validity of any law.

Allegedly, the Alien and Sedition Act was specifically passed to target Benjamin Franklin Bache. Indeed, he was arrested for violating it before it passed Congress, according to this page, (that point is on page 9).

Benjamin Franklin Bache died of yellow fever while out on bail awaiting trial. It's possible that his jailers intentionally exposed him to yellow fever while in jail, or mistreated him while in jail. He might have died due to the stress of a phony trial. Either way, it seems believable that "President Adams murdered Benjamin Franklin's grandson!" Why don't they mention this in State brainwashing centers? I remember reading about the Alien and Sedition Acts. I didn't know that they were a censorship tool designed to silence political opponents.

Benjamin Franklin Bache "died of natural causes while awaiting trial" in the same sense that prisoners in Guantanamo Bay died of "natural causes".

Contrary to official State propaganda, the US Constitution was not ratified with overwhelming popular consent. Violence was used to silence the Anti-Federalist faction. Violence was used to collect the new taxes imposed by the Federal government, such as during the Whiskey Rebellion.

President Lincoln also used violence to silence critics during the Civil War. He arrested the editors of Northern newspapers who wrote that maybe the Southern states did have the right to withdraw consent for the Federal government.

Why is violent censorship not needed in the present? A handful of insiders control all mainstream media corporations. Plus, State spies have almost definitely infiltrated all mainstream media corporations. If a journalist accidentally tells the truth, then he is fired/disgraced/blacklisted, and he cannot find a new job. State restriction of the market prevents competition. State journalists/comedians are very careful about what they say, lest they be fired and be unable to find a new job.

"Mainstream media journalist" is a high-paying job. Most journalists earn high salaries, even though their only skill is spewing propaganda. It's very easy to fire a journalist who disrespects the State, and replace him with someone eager for a promotion.

The Internet changes the equation. The Internet allows people to share information and bypass State censorship. Via the Internet, I read about stories like that of Benjamin Franklin Bache.

Why don't State spies arrest/kidnap/kill everyone who writes about freedom? First, there's a lot of content on the Internet. A typical State spy would think that I'm a harmless fruitcake. Second, perhaps the State is losing power, making it impractical to crack down on everyone who writes about freedom. "People start writing about freedom!" is a prerequisite for eliminating tyranny.

The story of Benjamin Franklin Bache is very interesting. It's an excellent example of State censorship in schools. By refusing to mention certain people or certain incidents, this is important but subtle censorship.

I am offended that I never learned about Lysander Spooner, Bastiat, or Benjamin Franklin Bache in school.

Google and Record Labels vs. Bloggers

This story is interesting. Google's Blogger shut down a couple of music-related blogs, for publishing links to allegedly copyrighted songs. It illustrates a few points I've mentioned before.

• Intellectual property is not property. I've mentioned that several times.
• The DMCA is a particularly evil law.
• The DMCA is the result of lobbying by record labels. It's a clear example of a law set up to benefit a handful of people at the expense of everyone else.
• Record label executives are behaving like jerkwads. They are State parasites. They are desperately trying to hold onto their monopoly, which the Internet is making obsolete.
• If you're an amateur/independent/semipro artist, you're probably better off self-publishing rather than signing with a label.
• Beginning artists are forced to sign a lousy deal with a record label, due to the State monopoly for funding and promoting artists.
  
• If you're an amateur/independent/semipro artist, you should self-publish DRM free. Your biggest risk is "Nobody knows who you are!" and not "People will copy without paying!"
• In this case, these were less-well-known artists who happened to have a deal with a label. They lose the rights to their own music. They can't give a blogger permission to promote their music.
  
• The mainstream media creates an artificial scarcity of music, by promoting some artists and not others.
• Google could shut my blog down. They could say that I'm committing a crime or advocating people commit crimes, when I write about agorism.
• As a large corporation, Google has to follow the law. Not willing to risk their State-backed monopoly, Google's executives will err on the side of bending over for the record corporation executives.

Someone should make a database of copyright free music. If I start my own vlog, I'd want to only use music without restrictions.

What is a Failed State?

I saw a bizarre idea circulating. Due to California's budget problems, some people are declaring California a "failed State".

If you live in California and refuse to pay taxes, then will people with guns come to kidnap you or take away your stuff? As long as the answer is "yes", California is not a failed State. The thugs don't have to be 100% effective. They just have to scare the vast majority into compliance.

In California, it's practically legal to possess marijuana. There are so many people ignoring the law. This makes it impractical for State thugs to crack down on everyone. However, some people in California do get busted for possession of marijuana. At some point, State thugs might ratchet up their enforcement efforts.

If there were widespread tax resistance, then that would lead to a failed State. The State thugs would walk off their job once their paycheck bounced.

However, California cannot fail unless the Federal government also fails. If necessary, the Federal government would send in thugs to keep collecting taxes. The whole point of the Federal government was that individual state insiders consolidated and expanded their taxation power. In 1787, some states were too weak to force the slaves to pay taxes. The Federal government was formed to consolidate and expand taxation power. State insiders were scared by Shay's rebellion, and formed the Federal government to violently resist future tax revolts.

It is more accurate to describe the USA as a "failing State" rather than a "failed State". As long as State thugs can violently collect taxes, then the State hasn't failed. As long as the vast majority of cattle pay their tribute without resisting, then the State hasn't failed.

In the USA, the Federal government and each individual State government will fail simultaneously. There are technically 50 separate state governments, but they're highly interlinked. For example, individual states can't legally issue their own money. After the US dollar collapses in hyperinflation, individual state governments won't have any money. I estimate there are 20 years left until the final collapse.

Another Interesting Mainstream Media Censorship Example

This post was pretty funny. Look at the comments section. "Comment Reported Unsuitable By User". Nearly every comment was deleted! It seems that their engine is going wayoverboard, when allowing users to censor each others' comments.

It seems that it was a discussion of "Taxation is theft!" that led to the censorship rampage. Someone was citing "Taxation is a Type of Slavery" in comment #23.

Why Not Restrict The Freedom Of Pilots?

I saw this joke. Someone wrote "Joe Stack misused a small airplane. We should restrict the freedom of people who own their own plane."

That'll never happen. Can you figure out why?

What type of people can afford their own airplane? Wealthy people and State insiders! A law restricting their freedom isn't going to pass.

BTW, I've seen a commonly cited misconception. "Joe Stack owned his own airplane." Actually, I read he was co-leasing it with someone else. Leasing a small airplane is a lot cheaper than buying one.

There's another bit "Joe Stack owned his own airplane! Why is he complaining?!" Just because your master allows you some possessions, doesn't mean your slavery is acceptable.

There are many positive inventions in our modern society. Most of them happened in spite of the State, rather than because of the State. For example, as soon as electricity was invented and widely sold, Edison and others lobbied for a State-backed monopoly. I can buy electricity in spite of the State, rather than because of the State.

Just because our modern society has some nice things, doesn't imply "Taxation is not theft! The State is beneficial!" The State has a monopoly. You can't prove things would be worse without a State violence monopoly. It's illegal for a group of people to get together and start a business that competes with the State monopoly.

Turd in the Punchbowl!

There were some good bits on Comedy Central this week.

On Tuesday's episode (3/16), Jon Stewart did a criticism of the financial industry that looked like it was straight from my blog. He mentioned that the banksters may borrow at the Fed Funds Rate (currently 0%-0.25%), while the average joe has to pay much higher rates. He mentioned Lehman's abuse of Repo 105 to hide losses. He mentioned that the banksters borrow huge sums of money on shady assets, while paying themselves a huge bonus.

Jon Stewart didn't say "Inflation is theft! The USA has a completely unfair monetary system! The Federal Reserve is one huge price-fixing cartel!" Still, it was the best criticism of the financial industry I've seen in the mainstream media.

There was one evil fnord on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report recently. They were both shown patriotically filling out their census forms. Presumably, some State bureaucrat demanded they air that segment. The correct answer is "The authority of the government is not legitimate!" However, I'd choose to fight another battle. I'd probably only answer the question regarding "How many people live here?" and leave the rest blank. The census is important, because government bureaucrats must keep track of their property!

Wednesday's episode of South Park also seemed like it was directly from my blog. The main point was "Of course a famous and wealthy celebrity is going to have sex with as many women as they can. Who wouldn't?"

I really liked the way the men looked nervously at the woman next to them, when saying "Why would a man want to have sex with lots of women?" That's really insightful, about how productive/parasitic relationships work. An "abused productive" person always fears retaliation by parasites. A parasite doesn't need to always violently retaliate. Psychological intimidation is sufficient.

In that episode, the women were all portrayed as parasitic. In reality, it's closer to 50%. I liked the way the Tiger Woods' wife was portrayed as evil. Based on what I've seen, she has the parasitic personality type.

Another interesting bit is "There's a turd in the punchbowl!" If an abused productive person starts to suspect a scam, then the parasites around them conspire to hurt them. Nothing inspires cooperation among parasites like an honest person.

Using an example from current events, Matthew Lee complained to Ernst & Young that "Repo 105" was wrong. The first thing Ernst & Young parasites thought was "There's a turd in the punchbowl!" Instead of taking the complaint seriously, they fired him. Matthew Lee hasn't found another accounting job since getting unfairly fired by Lehman.

Ernst & Young couldn't seriously investigate Matthew Lee's complaint. That would have required admitting they might not have done a good job. In this manner, the State economy selects against honesty and intelligence.

I don't fit into most large corporations, due to my tendency to object to dishonest behavior. Even at a small startup, one of the co-founders is almost always a parasite. A dishonest hiring manager can tell that I'm intelligent and honest. He'll make up some other excuse for refusing to hire me.

I like the bit where a soldier said "Wait a minute? WTF are we doing?" The response was "There's a turd in the punchbowl!" He was then Pat Tillman-ed. Any soldier who starts to see the scam risks his life.

My father said "I hope FSK doesn't act like that!", referring to how Kyle and that soldier questioned the scam. Unfortunately, honesty severely restricts your career opportunities.

I also liked the "What handkerchief?" mental health screening. Many public schools now have mandatory mental health screening for students. Those tests are as scientific as the "What handkerchief?" test.

Mandatory child mental health screenings are corporate welfare for psychiatrists and pharmaceutical corporations. Those fake screenings are an excuse to forcibly drug children.

When I was in the mental ward, it seemed the staff there were saying to each other "There's a turd in the punchbowl!" My higher state of alertness was falsely labeled as deviant behavior. Instead of seriously investigating, they forcibly drugged me and silenced me. A corrupt mental health industry plays a key role in preserving the Matrix.

Suppose Matthew Lee had told his State-licensed therapist "I think that there was accounting fraud at Lehman!" The therapist would say "There was no fraud at Lehman. You imagined it. You were fired because you were doing a lousy job, and not as retaliation because you pointed out fraud." The purpose of a State-licensed therapist is to reinforce the pro-State brainwashing of the patient.

There's also a "Turd in the Punchbowl!" effect in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Politicians don't want to seriously investigate allegations of incompetence by State insiders. This creates the illusion that they're covering up intentional misconduct, rather than severe corruption and negligence.

"9/11 was an inside job. Therefore, the authority of the Federal government is illegitimate." seems believable. It's an approximation of the truth, which is "All taxation is theft! The authority of government is not legitimate!" The 9/11 Truth movement is treated like a turd in the punchbowl, because it's too close to the real truth. Another problem is that some forums, like the Ron Paul forums, censor the 9/11 Truth movement. They think "Some people who support Ron Paul also believe 9/11 was an inside job. Therefore, all Ron Paul supporters are fruitcakes. We must censor this subject!"

Whether you believe 9/11 was an inside job or not, taxation is still theft and government has no legitimacy at all. Either way, agorism is the best strategy for fighting State evil. The 9/11 Truth movement must be censored, because of the conclusion "Government is a scam!" rather than anything else.

There also were some good fnords in the new series "Ugly Americans". If you take it literally, it seems silly. If you realize that most of the characters are analogies, it makes sense.

The bosses at work are demons. Translating to FSK language, demons are high-ranking State parasites.

The wizard is a typical parasite that exploits the State. He earns a decent living, without doing any real work. He isn't as ambitious a crook as the demons. The wizard does just enough work to get by, while deflecting blame and responsibility to other people. The best analogy is Wally from Dilbert. A wizard is a low-skill low-ambition parasite. Alternatively, the wizard realized that striving for more just isn't worth it. The wizard accepts his role as a cog in the machine. The wizard locally maximizes his ability to exploit the State.

A zombie is an abused productive person who's given up. The protagonist's roommate became a zombie because a woman said "I only date zombies."; she wanted a guy she could push around. A zombie is the typical brainwashed mindless wage slave. I noticed that certain parasitic women avoid me now; they'd rather be with a man they can exploit.

I was surprised that the police were drawn as human. The only human-looking characters besides the protagonist were the police.

The protagonist represents the dilemma a typical intelligent person faces. You don't want to be abusively evil like the demons. You don't want to be someone who shirks their responsibility like the wizard. You don't want to have given up like the zombies. You don't want to be corrupt like the police. What other possibilities are there? The implication of the story is that the protagonist has to become one of the other character types in order to survive.

Sometimes, Comedy Central has the best news. In the guise of fiction and humor, there's an opportunity to tell the real truth. "There's a turd in the punchbowl!" illustrates the way that State parasites crack down on honest people. If only one person at a time develops honesty, then State parasites can easily eliminate them one at a time.

In this manner, a world where everyone is crazy becomes a stable fixed point. When someone starts saying "Hey! This is wrong!", they're forcibly silenced. Usually, it's merely social pressure from parasites who psychologically dominate you. Other times, you might be fired from your job. A corrupt psychiatry/death industry silences dissent. If necessary, you might be murdered like Pat Tillman.

"There's a turd in a punchbowl!" is a great plot point on South Park. It indicates the way State parasites preserve their scam, by cracking down on dissenters.