I always feel like I’m really wasting my time whenever I post anything on this subject, because there is so much written about it that I sometimes feel I couldn’t possibly have anything original to say. But sometimes I do wish that we the people were able to run ads to present the other side of the story.

The thing I would remind people is that one of the reasons the Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution was to protect the average citizen from the abuses of those in power -- primarily those in government, but not exclusively. For example, the part about freedom of religion was added to prevent one particular sect (in any given area of the country) from forcing everyone to adhere to their creeds. Had that not been placed in the Constitution, we could well have had Northern Ireland type conflicts in various regions of this nation.

I mention that because people tend to forget that back then, the church was very powerful -- moreso than any corporation. The church had the power to solely oppress anyone who expressed viewpoints that were at variance with those of the church. The goal of the Bill of Rights was to make sure that no one, not even those who claimed to be the representatives of deity, had too much power over the individual.

And then there is freedom of the press. A lot of powerful people and institutions stood to lose a lot from a free press, because people could write whatever they wanted and have it distributed-- even if it offended the government or the church.

Had corporations been as oppressive of people’s rights back then as they are today, perhaps something would have been said in the Bill of Rights about them as well. I’m sure that at very least, the founding fathers would have had some discussion about whether a group of people should obtain almost all the rights of an individual, but few of the responsibilities, and very little personal liability for wrongdoing. By that I mean, if you accidentally hit someone with your car, as an individual you’ll likely go to jail for some period of time. Yet if a corporation takes some action, for the sake of maximizing profit, that injures or even kills hundreds of people, it’s very unlikely that
those responsible for that action will spend any time in jail at all.

Thus, you as an individual arguably have less rights than the corporation, if only because they can afford to hire a team of lawyers and you probably can’t -- and that totally goes against the principles this country was founded on.

Anyway, getting back to freedom of the press, let’s suppose that it was discovered at some point that, say, 85% of everything being printed were mostly “offensive” material, however you (or the authorities) define offensive. There might be efforts to destroy the offensive material, but no one would dare suggest destroying all the printing presses, for the obvious reason that you can’t have freedom of the press if there are no presses.

And that gets me to the point I really want to make. Printing presses were high technology in the day that the Bill of Rights was written; there was true freedom of the press and anyone could print what they wanted.

Today, people still read printed material, but they also get information and entertainment from newer technologies, such as television and the Internet.

But what are we seeing today? Attempts by commercial interests to have new technology banned! Whether it’s certain features on television recorders, or something like a file sharing programs, there is a desire to make these technologies illegal simply because a high percentage of the use is “offensive” to someone. In these cases it’s offensive not primarily because it harms individuals, but rather the interests of corporations -- the “middlemen” who, like trolls guarding a bridge, try their best to prevent transactions between those who create, and those who use the created material, without requiring a “toll” of some kind. These corporations add absolutely nothing to the creative process -- as non-persons (in the real sense, not the legal fiction we have been conditioned to accept), corporations don’t “create” anything. They just take. Viewed one way, they are a somewhat more refined version of the
mob’s “insurance” racket.

Now here’s the question I have -- if printing presses were being “misused” in such a way that they threatened corporate profits, or public morals, or national security, what’s the lowest level of “legitimate” usage we would accept, based as a percentage, before we loaded all the printing presses onto barges and sank them in the deepest sea? Well, we all know the answer to that -- as long as the Constitution is at all revered by the courts, printing presses will be with us. We don’t destroy the technology because it can be misused. I submit that the Internet and file-sharing programs, and other forms of electronic media to a greater or lesser degree, are the “printing presses” of today. That does not mean that everything “printed” on them is legal, and action can be taken against illegal use, just as it is against certain offensive printed materials (which I won’t enumerate because overly-aggressive content filters might block this message). But the technology -- the “printing press” of today -- does have legitimate uses. People have used file sharing programs to distribute works no longer protected by copyright, works in the public domain, and even their own creations which they wish to share with the world (and have a legal right to do so).

Again, please keep in mind that the printing press originally needed protection because the rich and powerful didn’t like it a bit. Religious leaders in particular didn’t like it that people could distribute “unapproved” texts, and even pamphlets and books explaining how a particular sect’s doctrine deviated from the Holy Scriptures (people might stop attending church, and that would cut into their income!). Oppressive governments didn’t like it because it allowed those with eloquence to explain exactly how the government was oppressing the people, and people might start to demand a change. Powerful, self-important people didn’t like it, because people could educate themselves from a wide variety of sources, and weren’t as accustomed to groveling before a learned or influential person. So who doesn’t like file sharing technology? Once again, the rich and the powerful. It would make their lives so much easier if that pesky technology would just disappear. They then wouldn’t have to go after individual violators of the law, and give them their day in court. They could simply ignore due process. In short, they’re more than prepared to throw out any good that a technology might produce (for example, allowing artists more direct access to those who enjoy their work) in order to further their own self-interests. In one sense, they have judged the American people and found us all guilty, and the punishment they now wish to impose is to prohibit us from having particular forms of technology.

There are really two points that I wish those who are actively involved in today’s struggles could get across. If I owned a billboard company, I’d make up two billboards and place then at strategic locations all over my territory. The first billboard would read, “File-sharing programs are today’s printing presses”, and perhaps would have a picture of Benjamin Franklin operating an old style printing press turning out revolutionary-era pamphlets. The RIAA and MPAA want everyone to associate file sharing with theft, where the truth is that they give people greater freedom -- in particular, the freedom to distribute music, books, and other works they have either created, without having to deal with an industry that only has its own interests at heart. The second billboard would be a bit more general, and would have a large headline that reads “Corporations are NOT people, too.” (with the word NOT in bright red) And underneath, “So why do they have so many more rights than you and I?” The last line could be varied from location to location, for example, “So why do the politicians kowtow to them and ignore the rest of us?” Or maybe, “And that’s why they sometimes get away with things that you’d be put in jail for doing.” I’m sure the creative folks among us could come up with several other pithy endings.

The problem with the latter, though, is that a lot of people don’t understand that certain corporations really are oppressive of individual rights. For example, they walk into Wal-Mart, where the people seem happy enough and where they think they are getting great prices, and start thinking that corporations are good for America. They don’t bother to differentiate between those that are somewhat benign, and those (like the entertainment industry, and the largest telephone companies, and parts of the health care industry) who think that Americans exist solely for their profit -- that we are born as consumers, will die as consumers, and that they have a divine right to get as much money out of us as they possibly can. Or to put it in simpler terms, some are much greedier than others, and the greedy ones don’t give a damn about individual rights, and would gladly spit on the Bill of Rights (figuratively speaking, of course -- a non-person can’t spit) if it meant greater profits. From about the 50’s through the 80’s, we were constantly told that communism was the biggest threat to American society. Since communism was bad, I think we all assumed that capitalism (the ideological opposite) was good. Of course, it’s not necessarily an either/or equation -- BOTH can be bad at times and good at times. “Pure” communism, had it ever actually been practiced, may have had a few things to teach us. But both systems, communism and capitalism alike, were corrupted by those who desired power and wealth. Communism’s biggest failing may have been that it assumed that man is innately good, and its adherents were therefore blindsided when evil men pretended to be good for a time, until they could seize power. Under capitalism, it’s much harder to seize absolute power, but much easier to be a power-monger within a narrow field of influence -- a single industry, perhaps. But in either case, the result is to maximize power and wealth for a select few, at the expense of the many common people.

This isn’t anything new -- many, many organizations and movements throughout history were started out with somewhat benevolent intentions, often by individuals who had no idea what sort of fruits their efforts would yield. But any successful organization is like a magnet to the very sort of cutthroat individuals that would use that organization for their own personal gain. Such individuals (for example, some CEO’s), caught up in their own success and the success of the organization, may begin to think they deserve all the best the society has to offer, and they are within their rights to use any means to get it. Hopefully, at some point their excesses catch up with them, when people get so fed up that they will no longer stand for it, and they finally lose their power.

I suggest that we just may be about to get to that point with the entertainment industry. The rich and powerful people who run that industry forget that the consumer who put them in power can easily de-throne them, simply by refusing to buy their products. Unfortunately, it probably won’t happen until they’ve reached the point of acting like jack-booted thugs (I almost expect them to start hiring their own “enforcers” one of these days), and then a lot of innocent people will suffer (thugs don’t much care who they terrorize, even if it’s a completely innocent party). What really scares me is that our government seems to becoming more and more totalitarian, except that it’s not communist or socialist ideologues that are trying to usurp power -- rather, it’s corporate ideologues, who seem to think that the rights of the people are subservient to the rights of corporations. These people have managed to get themselves elected to office, in both parties, and are pretty much running the country, and little by little all the freedoms we had in the first 200 years of our nation are being taken away. For someone coming from a totalitarian regime, I’m sure America still seems like a glorious land, but at least a few of us that have been around for more than a few years (especially those of us who grew
up in rural areas) realize how many freedoms we’ve lost.

When I was much younger, the fact that I would die someday really scared me. Now, sometimes, I worry that I won’t die before society has changed so much that I just can’t stand living anymore.

This article was submitted anonymously -- since nothing on the web ever really dies, I don’t want anything I’ve written tonight held against me at some future date. I don’t expect too many people will agree with everything I’ve said above, but it is just how I see things. This article isn’t copyrighted (I hereby place it in the public domain), so if I’ve made any good points, feel free to snip and use in your own writings -- no credit is requested or desired.