I also read somewhere (so this is hearsay) that the order was for $500k worth of software. Kinda like BillG making a $1million dollar donation to a Uni, when $500k of it is 500 $1 cds stamped with an image of W2K/BackOr^hffice. Oh, what a tangled web we weave..
McGrath responded to this scenario: a student uses a campus Internet connection to decide which political candidates to support. That person is misusing university equipment, she said, just as if she used her legislative office phone to make long-distance personal phone calls.
.and. the kicker
On the other hand, the same student, viewing the same pages for a class assignment, is using the equipment properly, she said
McGrath responded to this scenario: a student uses a campus Internet connection to decide which political candidates to support. That person is misusing university equipment, she said, just as if she used her legislative office phone to make long-distance personal phone calls.
.and. the kicker
On the other hand, the same student, viewing the same pages for a class assignment, is using the equipment properly, she said.
I want this lady writing more Internet legislation she is "with it" and knows how "totally rad" this whole "Internet" thing is....
I also read this as saying, "If you are an out-of-state student (i.e. not subsidized by the state) you have free reign to grab all the pr0n you want" It's not taxpayer money at that point (have you seen out of state tuitions?!), and therefore their purview expires.
I want DVD readability on all systems, and I want the ability to copy my DVDs
--is to--
but I don't want to circumvent the security mechanisms in place that allow companies to make money so they can make films and make DVDs
as
When I was a kid, we found tons of ways to do it...
--is to--
To me, the Spirit of the Internet has always been about a global community respecting each other and sharing information for its benefit. I don't see that at all nowadays.(*coughI feel no sympathy for the Napster kiddiescough*)
Stop contradicting yourself. I see massive battles being fought now to decide who will "own" media in the future. Personally I'd like to see it be the people who buy it, but it seems more and more that those with big money want it to be the people that make it (i.e. the people with big money). (Ignoring the fact that media is totally worthless without people to consume it). That somehow by putting in the money to produce something guarantees you have ultimate control over who sees it and when and you "deserve" compensation on an order of magnitude based on a finite product, regardless of outside market influences (stuff like, say, the Internet). Stop propping up a dead ideology, power to the people and all that.
If i sound frustrated, it's cause I am. From the point of view of responding to a capitalist threat by exercising our capitalistic free-will, you know, I don't see much promise.
Um, that's like saying that even though some jerk was elected by a voting process, that same process can't remove him. That's not true. But the process takes time, lot's of it. Especially as the targets get larger and larger. Keep preaching, keep practicing, don't falter, and you will win, it just takes time and an iron will.
it's the same thing as a processor making an educated guess as to which fork a certain instruction will take. Judges are the logic gates of our society. There's really no loss of access to the program (i'll email it to ya if things get desperate) but if monetary damages could be proven and the case goes (time forbid) to the plantiff, then a lot of people might be in trouble.
'course IANAL and never wish to be, and I'm writing this while watching Saturday moring cartoons in my underwear, so there.
Re:are contracts/licenses copyrightable?
on
Hole in GNU GPL?
·
· Score: 2
a list of names and phone numbers cannot be copyrighted, as there is no "originality" in it.
What about consumer data? I work with a LOT of consumer profile/stereotyping info, is there some way to open these databases on these grounds?
I explained this whole thing to some outsiders (ya'know, those folks that DON'T have high speed access 60/24/365, and don't know what/. means) and at the end they told me, "You're one of the good guys, fight the good fight" (or something similar).
I said thanks, we drank some more beer, yadda blah blah, g'night.
Sure, the music industry sucks ass and don't deserve the cash, but ultimately by pirating MP3's and filling your CDR's with them doesn't help the individual artists one bit. Musicians are already getting screwed by the industry at large, they DON'T need to be doubly screwed by people pirating their music this way.
So, we shouldn't try and fight the people who are screwing the artists, but should instead support them in their screwing activities? I've seen too many "Where are they now" and "Behind the Musics" to think that I'm *helping* Britney Spears by buying her super-duper album.
So you're left with a choice, wait a sec, Choice. How much Basement Jaxx do *you* hear on the radio? I'd never heard them before. I'm sitting in a bar with a friend and he mentions them. What do I do? Go home type "Basement Jaxx" and start listening to some cool music. Now, pray tell, how is this bad? How much more likely am I now to buy their CD? I never would have heard *of* this band, much less had an oppurtunity to listen *to* them, without more effort on my part. Well, I'm a lazy consumer. There are lots of lazy consumers. Most just buy what they hear on the radio, or MTV, or what their immediate friends have. Now we have a chance to get exposed to the full spectrum of musical talents, and love more music.
I don't believe that I need to pay $16 dollars for a CD when I KNOW that $5 went to make sure I heard about it over and over again, $7 went to some guy because he had the other $5 to tell me about it, $1 pays for all the stuff it comes in, $2 goes to the company that stole, err, owns the rights to the song, which is the only way the artist (who gets some of that last dollar, minus taxes) could get the $5 to tell me about the song. Thats fscked up.
Oh, and, for your "you can't make any money giving away music" b.s. whining. I give you this link. 75,000 people at $175 a piece, that's real money. How? LIVE MUSIC. It's really the only music worth paying for, espcecially, (and this is important) since the Internet reduces costs of reproduction and distrubution for the producer to zero.
I make a conscious choice to support MP3, I think it's a great way to share music. And nobody gets hurt (unless you think it hurts artists for more people to pay attention to them). Hell, nobody has to do anything, but me and my anonymous benefactor. Artists make most of _their_ money from live shows anyway (at least real ones), music is a live art form. NO method of recording will ever replace being there, but, new technologies can change the real world value of things, often reducing thier usefulness to zero.
Oh, and by not blindly believing the people who stand to lose billions when people turn to MP3, you might end up with more cool stuff like this (a rebroadcast of all 14 hours of music from the other link). I'm not saying all bands can do this, but some can. And here is a very definite "Yes, you can make money by giving away music. You just have to keep making it, and do it very well."
The "OSS" movement shouldn't define itself in terms of Microsoft, it should just worry about making the best software it can.
yup, don't try and fight the 800-lb Gorilla, ignore it. Eventually it will die trying to market against a free (both senses) product. That's not to say the inertia won't keep M$ around for a long time, but inertia is hardly momentum.
this might not be worthwhile for M$, but there are time sensitive data distrubutions (ratings information is one we use) that could use this degradable media. But outside of that...
...I'll be buying this for all my entertainment needs, nothing like pausing a movie only to come back and find the disc turned blue and unusable! Why use something an infinite number of times, when you could only use it once? I throw out toilet paper after I use it, why not storage media? Sign me up for 20 copies of Dumb and Dumber (comes free for every idiot who buys one), I can't wait.
A soldier walks by, he notices your blanket and takes a fancy to it. You refuse to give it up, so the soldier shoots you and takes the blanket. Who retains the power?
My friends, after they stone the soldier.
oh, you say, then they get shot. Well then their friends get the blanket, they get shot. repeat until everyone is dead or happy.
That example proves nothing.
Well, first of all Jesus is a special case, isn't he? I don't think Christianity considers him dead.
A lot of people don't think Elvis is dead either, but that don't mean he ain't. A special case perhaps (if you believe in his divine nature vs. a pretty solid philosopher) but still makes my point.
Second, you are confusing a person and his ideas.
I'm curious about how you seperate the two. Sure there is a difference (my ideas don't drive a car) but as this case illustrates, here a man _died_ for his ideas (standing up for them, as the case may be).
To draw a parallel, if the "towel" you mentioned earlier was Dr. King's dream. Can anybody take that away from him? It would seem to me, that the people (person) who tried, couldn't. It's still his, and is cele^H^H^H^Hrecognized throughout the country. It's _his_ towel.
If you break your leg on a hunting trip into the Canadian Northern Territories and have no way of communicating, your choices are: (1) Freeze/starve to death; (2) Shoot yourself. Where is power here?
Power and stupidity/fate mix as well as anything else, i.e. not that much. By saying that I would have the choice when to die, I was referring to a situation like the towel. If I thought the towel was worth dying for, I would, that's my choice, my Power (that'd be dumb as hell, but to each his own)
Hostility is more than justifiable in cases like this.
I agree, flaming can serve the useful purpose as feedback that you are doing something wrong. It gets excessive sometimes, but so does everything else. Ignoring a$$holes is the best way to make them go away, practice, you'll get better at it.
Here's a nice e-mail I got today, perhaps this explains why flaming (in the "you're doing something wrong" sense) is necessary
>MESSAGE OF THE DAY: > >Too often, we lose sight of life's simple pleasures. > >Remember, when someone annoys you it takes 42 >muscles in your face to frown BUT, it only >takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and bitch-slap >the motherfucker upside the head...
>>How much power anyone has over you is your >>choice. Nobody can -make- you do anything. >>What -you- do is always your choice
>That's a banal triviality. Yes, my muscles are >under my control, so technically I only do what >I want to. That is neither useful, nor >interesting observation.
Not at all, it is an important (if basic) point.
>If somebody shoots and kills me, that is power over me.
Not power over you, power applied to you. If they did it because you wouldn't give them what they wanted, who retains the power?
Funny how you would mention this the day after MLK day, he sure lost a lot of power after he died, same for Jesus.
"You can kill a man, but you can't kill what he stands for." -CSM
We're all gonna die anyway, if I get to choose when and for what, that's power.
I'm not saying that physical power is immaterial, far from it, but Power (with a capital P) is far more complex than being stronger or having a bigger gun.
(hey, at least my.sig is on-topic...for this post;)
Subject: Re: The GPL and secrecy From: Richard Stallman Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:41:08 -0700 (MST)
> In a recent slashdot discussion, someone >reasserted the often-expressed opinion according >to which a company may choose to keep modified >GNU GPL'ed software secret, as long as it didn't >distribute either source or binaries of it, just >like anyone is free to make private >modifications of such code and not redistribute.
I agree with that position, as a question of legal interpretation of the GPL. The reason is that the company is not distributing the program in that case.
no, you have to dig for them. They do, however, "just sit in the dirt".
Maybe if paleontologists realized how much they could get for a skeleton, we'd have a lot more diggers. I don't see a problem with the sale, but then again, I buy old dinosaur all the time to power my car.
Someone out there has spent time and effort and probably their own money creating some product be it music, a movie, whatever.
so THEY are entitled to get all their money back, even if environmental changes totally alter the distrubution system such that every single person in the world could appreciate their art WITHOUT ANY EFFORT, COST, or ATTENTION by the creating artist or controlling producer.
If you make a copy, that is theft - pure and simple - you have taken something which is not yours.
Theft, pure and simple eh? So if you read a book, get an idea, and think about that idea, then tell someone else about that idea, you have "stolen" it from the author. Sure the book is still there, sure the words are still there for anybody else to read, but it's still stealing, right? bah!
What exactly have I "taken" when I get an MP3 from Napster? What is moved? What is lost? What have I taken control of?
So the big deal is all about protecting what is the legal property of someone.
No the big deal is about lobbying to create laws that build a framework to control and limit something that is inherently infinite, and could benefit society in a variety of ways.
To base a society on the principle that it is okay to steal from others is socially destructive.
To base a society on principles that it is bad to share with others is socially destructive.
When will people grow up and stop trying to pretend that theft is okay - try taking responsibility for your actions.
Right after you grow up and realize that it isn't the same world that it was 5 years ago, and those laws which define the "theft" of infinite products should be thrown out like yesterday's trash.
Why do you think people have this opinion of young computer people being pirates? Could it possible be because they hear comments from pirates trying to defend the undefensible?
Could it possibly be that there are enough slow witted folks to agree with the people condemning the pirates, while not realizing that the condemners are the same ones losing money because they didn't realize the world had changed underneath them, that we will be denied access to and the ability to share beautiful things?
Excellent. I couldn't have said it better myself (and have tried). This is nearly word for word my feelings on this subject. Our media has been controlled so long, that now it is basically force fed down our throats (Spicy Martin 'n Sync with Mambo #5). Finally a distrubution method develops that lets us do our own cooking, and the folks with what has now turned into an infinite supply of food are trying to make it seem like it isn't, and we could run out any second. And seem to hold the opinion that no one else could ever grow new food.
The tough part is that these companies will spend their VAST resources trying to hold their ground. We've all seen how they'll do it too, in the courts with lawyers. There is a huge consumer vs. corporate battle brewing, it's time to choose sides, and make your opinions known (at least for me).
Slashdot Mirror
I also read somewhere (so this is hearsay) that the order was for $500k worth of software. Kinda like BillG making a $1million dollar donation to a Uni, when $500k of it is 500 $1 cds stamped with an image of W2K/BackOr^hffice. Oh, what a tangled web we weave..
...of the disappearing "i,/i" tags...
.and. the kicker
McGrath responded to this scenario: a student uses a campus Internet connection to decide which political candidates to support. That person is misusing university equipment, she said, just as if she used her legislative office phone to make long-distance personal phone calls.
On the other hand, the same student, viewing the same pages for a class assignment, is using the equipment properly, she said
you missed the worst part
McGrath responded to this scenario: a student uses a campus Internet connection to decide which political candidates to support. That person is misusing university equipment, she said, just as if she used her legislative office phone to make long-distance personal phone calls.
.and. the kicker
On the other hand, the same student, viewing the same pages for a class assignment, is using the equipment properly, she said.
I want this lady writing more Internet legislation she is "with it" and knows how "totally rad" this whole "Internet" thing is....
I also read this as saying, "If you are an out-of-state student (i.e. not subsidized by the state) you have free reign to grab all the pr0n you want" It's not taxpayer money at that point (have you seen out of state tuitions?!), and therefore their purview expires.
I want DVD readability on all systems, and I want the ability to copy my DVDs
--is to--
but I don't want to circumvent the security mechanisms in place that allow companies to make money so they can make films and make DVDs
as
When I was a kid, we found tons of ways to do it...
--is to--
To me, the Spirit of the Internet has always been about a global community respecting each other and sharing information for its benefit. I don't see that at all nowadays.(*coughI feel no sympathy for the Napster kiddiescough*)
Stop contradicting yourself. I see massive battles being fought now to decide who will "own" media in the future. Personally I'd like to see it be the people who buy it, but it seems more and more that those with big money want it to be the people that make it (i.e. the people with big money). (Ignoring the fact that media is totally worthless without people to consume it). That somehow by putting in the money to produce something guarantees you have ultimate control over who sees it and when and you "deserve" compensation on an order of magnitude based on a finite product, regardless of outside market influences (stuff like, say, the Internet). Stop propping up a dead ideology, power to the people and all that.
If i sound frustrated, it's cause I am. From the point of view of responding to a capitalist threat by exercising our capitalistic free-will, you know, I don't see much promise.
Um, that's like saying that even though some jerk was elected by a voting process, that same process can't remove him. That's not true. But the process takes time, lot's of it. Especially as the targets get larger and larger. Keep preaching, keep practicing, don't falter, and you will win, it just takes time and an iron will.
it's the same thing as a processor making an educated guess as to which fork a certain instruction will take. Judges are the logic gates of our society. There's really no loss of access to the program (i'll email it to ya if things get desperate) but if monetary damages could be proven and the case goes (time forbid) to the plantiff, then a lot of people might be in trouble.
'course IANAL and never wish to be, and I'm writing this while watching Saturday moring cartoons in my underwear, so there.
a list of names and phone numbers cannot be copyrighted, as there is no "originality" in it.
What about consumer data? I work with a LOT of consumer profile/stereotyping info, is there some way to open these databases on these grounds?
I explained this whole thing to some outsiders (ya'know, those folks that DON'T have high speed access 60/24/365, and don't know what /. means) and at the end they told me, "You're one of the good guys, fight the good fight" (or something similar).
I said thanks, we drank some more beer, yadda blah blah, g'night.
Resistance is not futile. It is fruitful.
Sure, the music industry sucks ass and don't deserve the cash, but ultimately by pirating MP3's and filling your CDR's with them doesn't help the individual artists one bit. Musicians are already getting screwed by the industry at large, they DON'T need to be doubly screwed by people pirating their music this way.
So, we shouldn't try and fight the people who are screwing the artists, but should instead support them in their screwing activities? I've seen too many "Where are they now" and "Behind the Musics" to think that I'm *helping* Britney Spears by buying her super-duper album.
So you're left with a choice, wait a sec, Choice. How much Basement Jaxx do *you* hear on the radio? I'd never heard them before. I'm sitting in a bar with a friend and he mentions them. What do I do? Go home type "Basement Jaxx" and start listening to some cool music. Now, pray tell, how is this bad? How much more likely am I now to buy their CD? I never would have heard *of* this band, much less had an oppurtunity to listen *to* them, without more effort on my part. Well, I'm a lazy consumer. There are lots of lazy consumers. Most just buy what they hear on the radio, or MTV, or what their immediate friends have. Now we have a chance to get exposed to the full spectrum of musical talents, and love more music.
I don't believe that I need to pay $16 dollars for a CD when I KNOW that $5 went to make sure I heard about it over and over again, $7 went to some guy because he had the other $5 to tell me about it, $1 pays for all the stuff it comes in, $2 goes to the company that stole, err, owns the rights to the song, which is the only way the artist (who gets some of that last dollar, minus taxes) could get the $5 to tell me about the song. Thats fscked up.
Oh, and, for your "you can't make any money giving away music" b.s. whining. I give you this link.
75,000 people at $175 a piece, that's real money. How? LIVE MUSIC. It's really the only music worth paying for, espcecially, (and this is important) since the Internet reduces costs of reproduction and distrubution for the producer to zero.
I make a conscious choice to support MP3, I think it's a great way to share music. And nobody gets hurt (unless you think it hurts artists for more people to pay attention to them). Hell, nobody has to do anything, but me and my anonymous benefactor. Artists make most of _their_ money from live shows anyway (at least real ones), music is a live art form. NO method of recording will ever replace being there, but, new technologies can change the real world value of things, often reducing thier usefulness to zero.
Oh, and by not blindly believing the people who stand to lose billions when people turn to MP3, you might end up with more cool stuff like this (a rebroadcast of all 14 hours of music from the other link). I'm not saying all bands can do this, but some can. And here is a very definite "Yes, you can make money by giving away music. You just have to keep making it, and do it very well."
The "OSS" movement shouldn't define itself in terms of Microsoft, it should just worry about making the best software it can.
yup, don't try and fight the 800-lb Gorilla, ignore it. Eventually it will die trying to market against a free (both senses) product. That's not to say the inertia won't keep M$ around for a long time, but inertia is hardly momentum.
this might not be worthwhile for M$, but there are time sensitive data distrubutions (ratings information is one we use) that could use this degradable media. But outside of that...
...I'll be buying this for all my entertainment needs, nothing like pausing a movie only to come back and find the disc turned blue and unusable! Why use something an infinite number of times, when you could only use it once? I throw out toilet paper after I use it, why not storage media? Sign me up for 20 copies of Dumb and Dumber (comes free for every idiot who buys one), I can't wait.
this is why I use digital media, no pollution outside creating more electricity. Plastic is soo 70's.
A soldier walks by, he notices your blanket and takes a fancy to it. You refuse to give it up, so the soldier shoots you and takes the blanket. Who retains the power?
My friends, after they stone the soldier.
oh, you say, then they get shot. Well then their friends get the blanket, they get shot. repeat until everyone is dead or happy.
That example proves nothing.
Well, first of all Jesus is a special case, isn't he? I don't think Christianity considers him dead.
A lot of people don't think Elvis is dead either, but that don't mean he ain't. A special case perhaps (if you believe in his divine nature vs. a pretty solid philosopher) but still makes my point.
Second, you are confusing a person and his ideas.
I'm curious about how you seperate the two. Sure there is a difference (my ideas don't drive a car) but as this case illustrates, here a man _died_ for his ideas (standing up for them, as the case may be).
To draw a parallel, if the "towel" you mentioned earlier was Dr. King's dream. Can anybody take that away from him? It would seem to me, that the people (person) who tried, couldn't. It's still his, and is cele^H^H^H^Hrecognized throughout the country. It's _his_ towel.
If you break your leg on a hunting trip into the Canadian Northern Territories and have no way of communicating, your choices are: (1) Freeze/starve to death; (2) Shoot yourself. Where is power here?
Power and stupidity/fate mix as well as anything else, i.e. not that much. By saying that I would have the choice when to die, I was referring to a situation like the towel. If I thought the towel was worth dying for, I would, that's my choice, my Power (that'd be dumb as hell, but to each his own)
Hostility is more than justifiable in cases like this.
I agree, flaming can serve the useful purpose as feedback that you are doing something wrong. It gets excessive sometimes, but so does everything else. Ignoring a$$holes is the best way to make them go away, practice, you'll get better at it.
Here's a nice e-mail I got today, perhaps this explains why flaming (in the "you're doing something wrong" sense) is necessary
>MESSAGE OF THE DAY:
>
>Too often, we lose sight of life's simple pleasures.
>
>Remember, when someone annoys you it takes 42
>muscles in your face to frown BUT, it only
>takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and bitch-slap
>the motherfucker upside the head...
4 muscles, 40 keystrokes, what's the difference.
...now _that's_ an obligatory AC post.
>>How much power anyone has over you is your
.sig is on-topic...for this post ;)
>>choice. Nobody can -make- you do anything.
>>What -you- do is always your choice
>That's a banal triviality. Yes, my muscles are
>under my control, so technically I only do what
>I want to. That is neither useful, nor
>interesting observation.
Not at all, it is an important (if basic) point.
>If somebody shoots and kills me, that is power over me.
Not power over you, power applied to you. If they did it because you wouldn't give them what they wanted, who retains the power?
Funny how you would mention this the day after MLK day, he sure lost a lot of power after he died, same for Jesus.
"You can kill a man, but you can't kill what he stands for." -CSM
We're all gonna die anyway, if I get to choose when and for what, that's power.
I'm not saying that physical power is immaterial, far from it, but Power (with a capital P) is far more complex than being stronger or having a bigger gun.
(hey, at least my
nice quote, it's going on my MP3SDMIRIAADVDCSS page :)
Subject: Re: The GPL and secrecy
From: Richard Stallman
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:41:08 -0700 (MST)
> In a recent slashdot discussion, someone
>reasserted the often-expressed opinion according
>to which a company may choose to keep modified
>GNU GPL'ed software secret, as long as it didn't
>distribute either source or binaries of it, just
>like anyone is free to make private
>modifications of such code and not redistribute.
I agree with that position, as a question of
legal interpretation of the GPL. The reason is
that the company is not distributing the program
in that case.
*cough*
(yes, I'm sure there were others...)
and you think you'll have MORE free time after college? ROTFL!!
They don't just grow on trees
no, you have to dig for them. They do, however, "just sit in the dirt".
Maybe if paleontologists realized how much they could get for a skeleton, we'd have a lot more diggers. I don't see a problem with the sale, but then again, I buy old dinosaur all the time to power my car.
it was and it sucked, Drakan is the first game to have a REALLY cool flyin' fire-breathing' dragon.
that was from the 138th(?) Episode Spectacular, it was a joke.
it's "five richest kings" playing off what's his name's statement that that would be the world demand.
:)
(finally a full-on Simpsons thread, yippee!)
Someone out there has spent time and effort and probably their own money creating some product be it music, a movie, whatever.
so THEY are entitled to get all their money back, even if environmental changes totally alter the distrubution system such that every single person in the world could appreciate their art WITHOUT ANY EFFORT, COST, or ATTENTION by the creating artist or controlling producer.
If you make a copy, that is theft - pure and simple - you have taken something which is not yours.
Theft, pure and simple eh? So if you read a book, get an idea, and think about that idea, then tell someone else about that idea, you have "stolen" it from the author. Sure the book is still there, sure the words are still there for anybody else to read, but it's still stealing, right? bah!
What exactly have I "taken" when I get an MP3 from Napster? What is moved? What is lost? What have I taken control of?
So the big deal is all about protecting what is the legal property of someone.
No the big deal is about lobbying to create laws that build a framework to control and limit something that is inherently infinite, and could benefit society in a variety of ways.
To base a society on the principle that it is okay to steal from others is socially destructive.
To base a society on principles that it is bad to share with others is socially destructive.
When will people grow up and stop trying to pretend that theft is okay - try taking responsibility for your actions.
Right after you grow up and realize that it isn't the same world that it was 5 years ago, and those laws which define the "theft" of infinite products should be thrown out like yesterday's trash.
Why do you think people have this opinion of young computer people being pirates? Could it possible be because they hear comments from pirates trying to defend the undefensible?
Could it possibly be that there are enough slow witted folks to agree with the people condemning the pirates, while not realizing that the condemners are the same ones losing money because they didn't realize the world had changed underneath them, that we will be denied access to and the ability to share beautiful things?
Excellent. I couldn't have said it better myself (and have tried). This is nearly word for word my feelings on this subject. Our media has been controlled so long, that now it is basically force fed down our throats (Spicy Martin 'n Sync with Mambo #5). Finally a distrubution method develops that lets us do our own cooking, and the folks with what has now turned into an infinite supply of food are trying to make it seem like it isn't, and we could run out any second. And seem to hold the opinion that no one else could ever grow new food.
The tough part is that these companies will spend their VAST resources trying to hold their ground. We've all seen how they'll do it too, in the courts with lawyers. There is a huge consumer vs. corporate battle brewing, it's time to choose sides, and make your opinions known (at least for me).