Thoughts on Copyrights

[mojo]

In defending an unpopular position and desire not to derail another thread and to state my belief that there might be other important reasons for copyright and not just a form of ego.

"A copyright is proof that the work is original and not copied from any other source."

Early in my research I found myself posting video without copyright or other watermarks. Soon I found other channels uploading and placing advertizing revenue on the film. Also the video description would change and lead people to possibly different conclusions and it certainly muddied the water of research.


I hope can see consideration and support for continued protection under copyright laws.

[Straker]

Copyright is a sensitive issue, and some people and countries blatently ignore it.

Straker

[Flash]

Soon I found other channels uploading and placing advertizing revenue on the film. Also the video description would change and lead people to possibly different conclusions and it certainly muddied the water of research.



I agree with this. When the work of someone is given genuinely and is found to be used to make money by others who are litterally stealing and making money out of it, what is the difference between this and PTB"s behavior? Not much imho.

Also, when the original work is transformed as not being true anylonger or not showing the intent of the creator, in other words, when the findings or art or... .are distorted, tell me, who are the winners. Certainly not the recipient of the work but rather the thiefs.

Furthemore, when those same thiefs are promoting the distorded work and mention the source as being the original creator, which it is not anylonger, how damageable is this to truth??

Not only does the creator does not get paid, but his work is slandered. Not nice at all.

I do think people should get paid for their work, the plumber is, the electrician is (they just won't do the work if they aren't), so why the creator, the artist or the proponent of truth would not? Why, because they want to spread truth, would they have to make less than the plumber?

Personnally, I think we often leverage by the bottom.

The plumber gets a very good living, the creative ones or those who have the talents to understand complex situations and vulgarise it for the plumber gets nothing, except spitful words from the general public.

This is how we do not protect our geniuses, in art or science and let them be killed by the Morgan and PTB of this world. This is how we do not stick together to get free energy. Leverage by the bottom.

Instead of thanking the creators, we criticize and destroy them, thinking that the plumber is more essential (which he is in everyday life, granted, but not necessarily to make us understand the universe, except for a few plumbers here on Avalon lol)

And I do expect a ton of brick following this post. (I feel like the screamed at conspiracy searcher, not understood, and still having to follow his path for the people).

When I think of it, all of this is stemming from lack of respect and consideration for other and their work.

[Flash]

I have seen that quite often. And then you do not have the money to sue and get the sales worth back to you. So the thiefs win again. You could sue Nickolodean, you know, if you have years and good financial back up. Otherwise, tough luck.

In countries where coryright are not respected, this happens very often. It was not as frequent in the western world fifty years ago, but now it became usual as well.

I do believe that what made the difference between development of the first world and the second world is, in part, the rule of law. It protected, in part, the creators and allowed for those having ideas to want to put them to use, because they thought they could make a living from it. In the less develop world, ideas would always be taken right away, with no financial exchange for survival, so it is not worth the effort to create anything worthwile, it will be taken. Of course, our development in the first world also relied heavily on us stealing from the less develop world. We were just doing it less in our own countries.

Stealing from creators IS stealing from humanity on the long run. Just think of Telsa thiefs and what we did not profit from as the 99%.

[M6*]

Hi Mojo!

Congratulations to you for defending this "unpopular position"!

This is, indeed, a delicate issue and Flash has pretty well outlined my feelings about it.
In fact, it has become so blatant in modern day society that many people have no idea why
it shouldn't fit their agenda and serve their ego.

However, this altruistic idea of mine concerning the subject does often slow me down
and sometimes even curbs my creativity. This is because I KNOW firsthand what can, and
sometimes does happen, as Straker has pointed out. So far, I have had no problems....but
I have close friends who have paid BIG TIME for an err in judgement. To me, it is just "NOT
WORTH IT"! Anyway, Thanks for the post and I will be interested to see what others have
to say about it! M6*

[Chester]

Bill once made a point about how hypocritical we are (humanity) about eating meat. Why should it be wrong for a reptilian to eat a human when a human eats other animals? That point hit home and hit home hard with me.

So why should one use the very system in such a draconian way as David does in the way he delivers the message to you regarding his concerns as to protection of his "intellectual property" to protect his perceived asset?

It is OK to attack the evil PTBs and their evil western world system and yet, when it might benefit you personally, use it and with full vigor?

I have left my emotion in the other thread and will now make this case through logic.

David is selling enlightenment - ok... nothing too weird about that I guess.

But he is also using the very system he attacks for whatever his reasons are - which I cannot comfortably justify because of the following - The attacks are part of his aura that attracts some of his followers to his materials - he is a good guy, like you poor victims, but he is gonna be brave and take on these nasty PTBs and because of that he gains your trust... he then, because he has an excellent way with words obtains your confidence further and further despite the fact that almost everything he produces is repackaged old news.

But you and me like him.

You and me begin to feel we can trust him.

He then suggests he has a method as to how you can access a part of you that these evil doers... the same ones he has attacked - have done all they can to prevent you from accessing... but here it is now... available to you on the almost free market for only $77.

Still, I am ok with this guy and I am ok to cough up the $77 which I did.

All good so far until I receive the 4 part series and begin to watch. Within less than a minute I find myself enduring the most opposite of postive projected energy I could possibly imagine that would come from someone who I had assumed had accessed their higher self.

Get the video, watch the next 4 or so minutes after the drippy first 30 seconds or so (yes... he goes on almost as long as some of my posts haha) and then tell me you don't feel like you didn't just endure exposure to the very worst expression of the very thing you hope you might transcend in accessing this higher self.

He could make the point without cranking down the screw so hard and I mean he truly cranks it down over and over and over. And not only does he do this at the beginning, but he does it at the beginning of each of his 4 videos in the series...

Now trust me, I know I am anything but a shining example of what an enlightened or good or "authentically spiritual" or ego transcended being would be and don't pretend to be and don't sell anything (yet) that pretends I have a clue, but if I did, the last thing I would do is ruin the show 1 minute after the curtain is raised.

I just expect better of David Wilcock. And I have a concern too. He is becoming a fringe mainstream celebrity and a greater percentage of humanity is being exposed to this guy... selling his beliefs, his spiritual teachings, his secrets to accessing the higher self and ensuring that you are well aware he will call upon all the power, strength and might of the very PTBs he suggests he can help liberate you from to protect "his way" which may end up to be considered by the courts in a broad decision as ANY way to achieve enlightenment.

Anyone happen to hear of Monsanto? The seed owner? The company that has taken over ownership of just about every food producing seed in the US?

Is Divine Cosmos on the way to becoming the Monsanto of "awakening?" The Monsanto of access to your "higher self?"

This post has zero issue with "copyrighting" your own art and hopefully you can see the difference.

I would have had no issue with your post being in the thread I started, mojo. I would be happy to transfer the text of my response over to that thread if you would like. Cheers... Chester

[ThePythonicCow]

I copyright most of the software I write of any potential use to others; so that I can then release it under an open source license such as the GNU General Public License (GPL) (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html).

The GPL license on my software basically says you can use that software, and share it with others, freely and with no obligation to me, except for one thing. If you use that software in something (a computer system or a larger piece of software, say) that you sell or provide to others, you have to give them (if they want it) the source code to the GPL licensed software, with any modifications you made, as well.

The GPL license was the key wedge that shifted the Unix operating system market from a number of proprietary vendors, duking it out with each other using incompatible variants of Unix, into a larger thriving Linux market, in which changes made by one hardware vendor (such as the memory and processor management code I added to Linux that is called 'cpusets') are available on any variant of Linux, from any vendor using Linux in their product. Linux now runs on more computer-based systems, from cell phones and home routers, to the world's largest computers, than any other operating system, by far.

This was a jujitsu-like move that used Copyright to force vendors that were naturally secretive and proprietary in their technology development to share and share alike.

So ... using an example that probably means little to most of those here ... Copyright can be quite useful.

However for more traditional uses, such as with written, audio, video or artistic creations, my impression (little direct experience) is that copyright usually turns into a question of who can afford the largest legal staff, or is operating in a country that doesn't require such staff. Only when the two "opponents" have similar legal funding, and when the value of the contested item is somewhat (but not too much) less than that funding, does copyright law end up mattering much.

If two ordinary poor people, such as myself, were in a dispute over some copyright material of major value, it would not matter what was the law, nor that neither of us could afford one decent lawyer, much less a major law firm. A major player such as Disney or Coke or McDonalds, or a foreign player under different intellectual property laws, would swoop in and take it from both of us.

[Chester]

My sons will tell you about all the times I gave them a hard time for ripping off music and movies, etc online on those bit torrent sites. I did the same with friends. I do not own a single CD that I did not purchase for example and I own very little personal possessions anyways but I paid for them as I honor the "royalty" system. Because of my personal track record in defense of artists creations I tried to make the point about the process David used. Not so much his aim.

You just have to watch it to understand it. Of course, I actually fear that if I wrote a word for word transcript of this portion of each of the 4 videos, his staff may hire the same "security force" Bill O'Reilly threatened to send out after a viewer of Fox News one time... I swear O'Reilly actually threatened to do that once I actually saw. Don't get me wrong, I really like Bill O'Reilly but that doesn't mean I can't call him out on what I see as crossing a line in his behavior, especially when one has the responsibility that "should" (only my opinion) go along with being in the public eye and that what he represents remains compatible to the messages expressed.