By Nous

			  May 9, 2005

MAY5, 10:45am -- Sin Co. Demayo

Child pornography:  we all love it. It's the one thing that everyone
in the world agrees is fundamental to the existence of a free state.
Without child pornography, a state is likely to crumble before long.
So why then is the United States so openly antagonistic to the rights
of child porn enthusiasts? Why do they say in the face of historical
evidence of the benefits brought about by freely-circulated child
pornography that it is evil? Why do they go against the teachings of
Jesus and Thomas Jefferson?
Child pornography is not only necessary for the survival of a free
state, nor is it simply beneficial to its citizens. Kiddie porn is
completely legal.
When I say legal, I mean that it is illegal. That is, there have
been numerous laws enacted to keep the citizens of free states from
viewing such material.  And why?
Actually, I can't keep going with this, but check it out.
You know about M15? The oldest established political police force in
Great Britain, which kind of lost its purpose once Communism had
collapsed. Well, they have been revived. There is a new enemy afoot,
an enemy as destructive to freedom as Communism: child porn. The
new M15 use child pornography as a justification for lots of the
new legislation being enacted in the land of our English brethren.
Screw those Irish. Anyway.
There is a war against child porn, and it's been cited to justify
a "draconian Regulation of Investigative Powers (RIP) Act proposed
by the British government in 2000. Under this law, all ISPs would be
required to connect their servers to the M15 minitoring center..."
Anyone could watch the web pages you're browsing in real time.
Let's admit now that this is exactly like some science fiction
thriller about an Orwellian society run by the Tech Elite.
Let's also admit that pedophiles probably exist in the world just
as the once-hated homosexuals exist, have existed, and will always
exist. Ostracization and legislation did not stop homosexuals from
having sex with each other. Legislation and monitoring tactics will
not stop pedophiles from having sex with children, which also exist
everywhere. It MAY stop them from video taping or photographing their
exploits and sharing them with others, but it will probably only
DECREASE the sharing. The videotaping will probably continue.
Let's also understand that when these tapes and photos are circulated
on the internet, it's advantageous to law enforcement agencies and
not really to the pedophiles who commit the acts (as opposed to the
pedophiles who simply collect the photos and videos). Why is that
true? Because these people who share their videos and photos do not
do it for profit, apparently, despite what one hears about the
booming child porn "industry."
Remember the Wonderland Club? I'm sure you do. One of the biggest
child porn rings in the world which was shut down (not by internet
monitoring, but by old fashioned police work, it turns out).
I checked out a book that has all of these stats about different
child porn stuff and it briefly talks about the Wonderland Club.
One thing I had always assumed about Wonderland was that it was
an organization dedicated to profit. I mean, also abusing children
but for profit, too. Well, it turns out that it wasn't. It was just
a group of pedophiles who traded videos and photographs amongst
themselves. Freely, that is.
Well, that's basically what goes on online, only there is no physical
trading. It's all electronic. So this stuff is not for money, folks.
It's because people do it and have always done it. Most likely, they
will always do it. That's the point.
What you're doing is driving it underground again. I mean, it's
underground now, but not nearly as underground as what it was. True,
it was sort of accepted in the 70's even in America, but for the
most part, it was a dangerous thing. Face to face stuff, physical
trading, you never knew if someone was a cop. But online all of that
has changed. There is no face to face communication and you never
trade with anyone, which the book explains.
Someone posts the link to a web page that has a lot of their child
porn pictures (these pages are up for only a few hours at a time)
and then someone else does the same.  It's like trading without
trading.
With these freely-circulated videos and photos, at least you know
who the kids are. I'm talking to Law Enforcement now.
You monitor the internet in an attempt to bring traders down, then
you're driving them underground. Then you don't have any idea who
these kids are that are getting abused.
Pedophiles will always be here, and molestation will always occur,
only it's going to start occurring in the dark again. You can not
defeat this shit, dude. It's like the war on drugs and terrorism.
But unlike drugs, it doesn't just harm the individual, if you believe
it harms them at all. It also hurts kids. And unlike terrorism, it
isn't really harming a large group of people. Terrorism hurts a
group of people and then another group and then another group.
Pedophile will usually stick with one or two kids, unless it's a
huge porn ring, in which case it's the same kids only different
abusers.
This is just a subject I've always found fascinating. I devour
this stuff like I devour Reptilian and religious shit.

MAY9, 8:30pm -- Why Can't We Be Pirates?

It's true; American courts and citizens have consisently defended
piracy, whether it occur in the field of music or film. Now never
to the point that people with legitimate rights to their creations
were not paid for public performances and whatnot. Piracy, though,
has always been considered a great instrument for creativity. It
is when piracy has no creative purpose behind it that even those
who defend piracy turn against it.
Consider the position of the author of a book called Free Culture,
Lawrence Lessig:

	...[W]e need to understand the harm in peer-to
	peer sharing a bit more before we condemn to the
	gallows with the charge of piracy.
	For (1) like the original Hollywood, p2p sharing
	escapes an overly controlling industry; and (2)
	like the original recording industry, it simply
	exploits a new way to distribute content; but (3)
	unlike cable TV, no one is selling the content
	that is shared on p2p services.
	These differences distinguish p2p sharing from
	true piracy. They should push us to find a way
	to protect artists while enabling this sharing
	to survive.

I still am sort of iffy on the whole property thing, because
quite frankly I don't understand how people can care so much.
Indeed, all societies preach to their young people the importance
of money. 
Well, actually I could go on and on. Let's just say it's silly
to worry so much about it. Because when it comes down to it,
money is what drives the demand for copyright laws. In a hundred
years no one will remember what I'VE done. That is, no one will
remember the songs I've written. And even if people do, what
about in two hundred years? What about a thousand?
Why don't you create to create? You might as well. It's fun. So
what if you don't get paid for it? Big deal.
And with all excuses aside, piracy is legally wrong.  It is a
crime. So is, for example, doujinshi in Japan (as Lessig points
out), but it isn't really legally attacked. And that's cool.
But when it is, do you really suppose it's about protecting the
artist?
Well, perhaps.
More likely than not, it's about money. The thing that bothers
me about it is that people actually care that their music is
being performed by other artists. They care that they aren't
given the credit. In that sense it's about art, but is that a
healthy way of looking at it? It's stupid and petty, really.
I suppose I'm wrong but I record my songs because it's what I
like to do.
When Shawn covered Oh What A Day (a song I wrote), that sort
of exasperated me, because all I could think was, "That's MY
song. You didn't even ask permission!"
Isn't that a dumb way to think? If you don't agree that it is,
I don't know that I can defend that statement. It's all in how
one perceives what's really important. I like writing songs; I
like recording them. That's important to me, if "important" is
even the right word. Claiming credit for a song doesn't really
interest me even if I have the right to do it.