Free flow of information?

Hey people. I'm starting this thread in relation to this:
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1293992141/1-40

 I think the flow of information is a MASSIVE issue that is not beeing discussed enough.

So, do you think the flow of information should be totaly unrestricted? Or do you believe there should be laws that protect people from malicious use.

Personaly I would like to see fully unrestricted flow of information one day, but i think that a sudden change in the way we currently manage it could be catastrophical. I believe an good order of abolishing restrictions would be to

a) abolish all copiright and intelectual property laws.
b) make all bank transactions available online
c) enforce transparency in bussinesses and states by forcing them to release all info they manage - including all their financial info.
d) allow some 20 years for the world to digest itself

Please feel free to attack my point of view and add your own. Scepticism is a bless...

bump

>>40
WRONG

>>40
Whoops! I fogot to add "though Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) needs to be overturned and over with. It's a bullshit ruling."

>>42
WRONG
Nice rebuttal there, chief. Stop reading Reddit, and actually understand things for yourself.

>>43

Sorry, just tired of long tl;dr arguments that go nowhere because some folks are too bullheaded to actually read what's written and give it some consideration.

>>44
Stop reading Reddit, and you won't get so worn out then.

the need to be recognized as bodies of individuals mang, cuz thats all there is

>>40

>>45
stop trying to put people down, and maybe you will be taken seriously.

>>47
"Putting people down" is not necessary if they put themselves down preemptively, using nothing more that entertaining rhetorical drivel from popular news aggregation websites. If you stop doing that, maybe you'll be taken seriously.

>>48

I love it when people think they have some idea of who I am or what I read based on comments like: WRONG

Haha, you must think you have super powers. How do you even take yourself seriously?

>>49
Everyone knows I have super powers and also that I'm a much better person than you...All my friends are like, ">>49 is stupid, we don't even like >>49".....so there.

>>49
I love it when people think they have some idea of who I am or what I read based on comments like: WRONG
Because simply stating that something is "WRONG" with no reason in rebuttal is nothing approaching a coherent argument. If you think you can be taken seriously based just on one word, you're on something else.

Right people. What kind of information should be strictly personal and what sould be public?

>>48
Stop putting people down, it's mean. You should have learned this on the playground in middle school.

>>28 What do you guys think about copyrights on GMOs?

I want to copyright niggers, so that I can round them all up and sterilize them.

a) abolish all copiright and intelectual property laws.

YES

b) make all bank transactions available online

NO.  Individuals have the right to privacy. This should only apply to public officials, business and people who use personal accounts for business use which they're not supposed to. That's why banks have business accounts.

c) enforce transparency in bussinesses and states by forcing them to release all info they manage - including all their financial info.

All their info, yes. All OUR info, no. Again, violation of privacy. Using hatchet solutions instead of a scalpal leads to back door violations of civil rights.

d) allow some 20 years for the world to digest itself

No. 1 year tops.

>>55
So I pick cotton for a living but I am an amazing writer but instead of getting paid to write books for a living and bringing joy to millions I have to pick cotton and can only write for 1 hour a day and have to live in poverty to do so.

>>56
Yup, that would get rip of all the crap literature that's being produced at the moment.

>>57
gief moneys plox

>>58, >>56

Mate, I'm a musician and still I'm against intelectual property. There's nothing wrong with selling books or CD's but the way things work right now, the big money usualy goes to publishing houses and the record industry. They're just using our work and us to blag more money from their customers. They 'create' artists to sell them and dispose them when they're done. And don't tell me that these industries don't bring people up and then drop them.

I don't buy books, so I don't know how it works for writters, but I blame the music industry for the shitty music that comes out. At the same time, commercial music hardly ever has something to offer to the musical art/science, it's just a muss-up of techniques and sounds that have initialy been used by underground and/or traditional music. If somebody had a pattent on these chords: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdVurJFMDUI , a great part of copyrighted music should be illegal!

This is how music and the arts work. Artists steal from each other hoping that someday they will manage to actualy produce something original which is what they will be remembered for. That's why I think it's crazy to have intellectual property on arts. How different is it  from science though?

Very nice short movie from romain gavras on musicians stealing from each other below.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZNqJ9geMJE
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buxTFlfZhwM

I think the above is based on the true story of 'the amen break': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

Good thread bump

>>59
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdVurJFMDUI
Maybe these "over-emotional faggots singing to chords" songs should be illegal unless their rendition just happens to be good enough to pay the copyright fee.

>>61
For fuck's sake yes! THEY should be paying US to listen to them!

a) abolish all copiright and intelectual property laws.
No, we shouldn't abolish copyright, but rather reform it drastically. The term and the "concept" of "intellectual property" should be done away with completely, though. It's a huge clusterfuck.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl220.php
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.