This Website is Completely Solar Powered! - Springfield, OH - Read it and Weep

Below are personal sentiments at the given moment in time.

The Evolution of "Copyright" "infringement"

Topic Matter: For Argument's Sake

*Copyright Clause is located at the bottom of this page. BUT we all know that these laws and "protections" from the laws are variable (ie. depending on your name, whether you are YouTube or one of the victimized citizens; the law only falls upon the latter)

Why is that?

Did we get the input of knowledge from the media PROGRAMMING?

Nope, not so much as a blurb from any of the curriculum fed to our braincells in school or other programming has bothered to find it needful to make the distinction to us.

It's been seen over and over how the privileged judges will do as they fancy in our Nation's present state.

Who will stop them from not leveling justice between the poor, middle class, or the rest of the world even?

In 2019 our Nation is not noted for its Respectable Polity.

But why not?

Our Nation is not hailed as the model nation.

But can't we aim for that epithet?

Our Nation is also not noted for our Un-Biased Judiciary.

Why do you suppose that is?

The same privileged group are financed by the monopolies and have become the Public Relations Group to the masses.

The world witnessed a President not win two consecutive elections, and yet he magically won both without so much as a blurb from the mouths of the teachers of the "schools". The apathy in our nation keeps this very issue off the tongues of our citizenry.

Presidents by Selection.

However, when the selection is made by one whoremongering cabal in collusion, that class of our society, brings my and your fate

Tick Tock (there is and end to that road)

ONE of my arguments against copyright "protections" (for the upper-elite) is that it is a means to change history.

For instance, copyright is a censorship that one group has over all the rest.

But the rulers, those that enjoy a standard of living (which the great majority of our species will never know even existed), cannot be error-free always.

It's only inevitable when one particular ruling group has alienated us all and makes a fatal mistake that affects the society as a whole.

Censorship, what you see, what you hear, what you are allowed to learn and think about, when controlled by the few - we all lose.

Like the government and other lobbyist fortune 500 corporations, I ought to be able to have the freedom to copy a text online and retain it for further reference.I ought to have, like the power-structure enjoys, the freedom to share that information.This law makes my eyes and ears illegal.Whether for passing on learning to the next generation, or maintaining a truism to be accessible to all, this law makes us all to be "criminal".

Did you ever watch a video or a full movie on YouTube?Did you think that YouTube created that video or movie?Not only was YouTube NOT the original uploader, or the creator, but does HOST the videos so is aiding and abetting criminal activity (as per the copyright laws so generously laden upon the lower-class citizenry).

By severing the ability to be able to maintain a copy of a document, and to share freely with the rest of the world, narrows our scope of passing on intelligence for furthering mankind's future.

Instead, imagine this scenario, where only the monopolies, like Youtube, are free to share videos without having created them.

Are they too not breaking their own lawmakers laws?And yet my website and social sites are removed at will by the powers that be simply because I uploaded a government employee killing a kid.The reasons that were given, most sites gave no notice and no reason, but of those that did give a reason, my upload was labelled as having committed copyright infringement.

Imagine that.Simply by stating the false claim that I have committed copyright infringement, the judgment was passed without so much as an utterance from a real live Judiciary.The monopolies are the judiciary in this case.

Oh, did I make the video? No, I did not.

Was the video in the PUBLIC DOMAIN ALREADY?Is the television's news PROGRAMMING guilty of passing on images and information that is also plagiarized and aiding and abetting all those that would succumb to the programming?

From another perspective, let's say that someone out on the net expounded something totally earthshaking, something that was posted by himself, the original author.

Yet by today's profiteering laws, the revolutionary news cannot be copied and shared freely even after your eyes and ears already committed the unpardonable sin of having seen and heard the "news".

So What, you say?

Well, let's fatten the plate of reason for a moment now.

For instance, let's say that the original author published evidence that un-fluoridated water was the cure to cancer.

Let's, for argument's sake, assume that his disovery was valid.

Let's also say your kid has cancer.

And let's season the pot with the original author having died.

Now dead, the information is forever lost, and I could not post that information on my own server to share with the world, that which would have saved your kid.

While you and your spouse are standing over the grave of the early demise of your little angel, consider now, "If only".

The original author has died, who will pay to keep his server up and running?

His life-saving information is forever lost once the server ( or "cloud" or social site ) goes down.

How will you, or your kid, be able to see what the monopoly-types are harboring (since they are the only ones that can "maintain" all data and history "legally").

It's a different perspective now, isn't it?

So, for the sake of water and profit, your kid is dead.

Oh, but which eschelon WAS free to copy the original author's work?

That's right, those capitalists that will capitalize upon your child's misfortune by not making the saving discovery available to you.

There is much more that needs to be stated on this topic of copyright laws, and how they are so very damaging to furthering intelligence, creativity, invention, and more.

This law of copyright is only a means to keep information controlled and contained for the profit of the few, over the masses (in my opinion).

I'll give more examples to substantiate the aforementioned statements in some future time.

Despite consequence, choose what is right and good and be not deceived by the magic trick of the shady ones.Their underlying motive is not just to contain the interests of some copy"right".

Here's a real-life example of censorship to the harm of the innocent. Read all about it Here.

As a final comment, consider me a patriot.However I believe we as a nation are too divided and that the Federal Government and our military need to come into each state and erradicate all the middle-men profiteers.ONE SET OF LAWS, ONE NATION, ONE RULER.How can we possibly be united when mereley walking 50feet forward we find ourselves in another state with a slew of profiteering contradictory laws?

Our nation is fast-approaching a 22 T R I L L I O N dollar debt.

One way to pay off the unreasonable precarious situation we are in, is by incarcerating all of the CEO's that ever bribed the polity and those that took the "lobby" money, seize their properties, and, if we need more money, then there's still Judges, governors, mayors, and more!

ONE nation undivided. End of Story.

Let's make this nation become the model nation of the world (as opposed to the uncouth desperate rogue we seem to be now).

This is an alternative, and don't you dare let your mind go numb and choose not to recognize there is an end to the following road:

I think we need our military back home.

SAVE OUR NATION, write a General!!

*Vote NO for liquidation and YES for Nationalization.

Email me with your ideas to save our Nation and I'll publish them (now getting the monopoly search engines to publish them, well that's another interesting topic I've come to be all-too-familiar with as of late).

And not for my ridiculous need for a waste of space: Fair Use Clause

107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Title I, 101, Oct 19, 1976, 90 Stat 2546)