@4 he is an MP he must read and reply to all e-mails, his e-mail is simons@parliament.uk I would recommend telling him to research file sharing technology, he is very ignorant.

…so are you, he is only obliged to respond to his constituents and your contact information is vetted before a response (ie they check you ARE in his constituancy and exist) and even then it will be an aide that responds on his behalf

Society should be throwing these fuckers out! along with the rest of the spineless or corrupt scumbags in power.

This is all drivenby the smell of money.

BEFORE, corporations DIDN’T KNOW how to monetize the tech. NOW they think they have an enormous untapped stream of CASH and they want to get on top of it for the CORPORATIONS BENEFIT.

And PART of that is CLOSING this tech to PUBLIC USE. You can funnel all the MONEY in ONE DIRECTION without LAWS to “protect” this newly found “property”.

Musicians have realized that records companies are parasites who aren’t NEEDED to distribute music, and soon motion picture production will bypass the movie studios.

And THAT is what they are trying to get ahead of.

..

Says you?
With all the creative people doing other things, one could argue that we might have far superior technology by now, given a different, say, socially-supportive, collaborative model.
I would be careful about confusing profit with money, and with one notion of profit versus many others. Also, I’d suggest that cooperation/collaboration may be a superior incentive than competition, despite the latter apparently being drilled into everyone’s skulls by those who might be more likely to profit by the brainwash. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiteering_(business)

Think about this, without a profit incentive what would are level of technology be like today? With all the creative people busy doing other things it would most certainly be much lower. Would the Microwave, Cell phone, or Internet even exist? How different is certainly something that would create a debate to last forever.

I find it disturbing that people think IP laws are the only way to stimulate innovation when it is not a more powerful stimulant is “survival”. Linux exist because competition and the ever present need to cut costs. One big driver of innovation is war that brought us to the space age, created the internet, microwaves and etc. It was not greed that gave us those things and you can even say that war is saving lifes with heavy investment in regenerative research so soldiers don’t come back mangled and deformed. Greed is not the only stimulus for innovation is part of a complex set and that cast serious doubt on the assumption that we wouldn’t have any of those things we have today. Maybe if it was not for IP laws and copyright we would have a better system then today for creation of innovation that don’t disappear with the end of a company, maybe we would have thousands of producers instead of one, that would not affect the economy if it was going to fail, maybe we could have WiFi everywhere already if people didn’t keep suing other people thatwould offer the services the people want. Survival is why countries that have no way of enforcing IP laws grow at accelerated rates and only start slowing down well big players emerge on that market and start poisoning the system.

Very big players with IP laws stop advancements.