Social Engineering and Political Experimentation.

A short patronizing history

Before the growth of the merchant class, nobility used their money, power, and influence to promote ideas through the use of patronage. If they favored an artist, philosopher, musician, writers, orator, scientist or even a jester, they would patronize them and in this way their ideas would flourish. The patrons, who were often egotistical, would take credit for the ideas and would circulate them to further their own fame.

After the growth of the merchant class, nobility lost sole control over money, power and influence and patronage was partially replaced with commerce. Artists, philosophers, musicians, writers, orators, scientists and even jesters were forced to please many people instead of just one in order to survive. Spreading their creative ideas became much harder because they did not have the money, power, or influence of the nobility.

With the advent of marketing; artists, philosophers, musicians, writers, orators, scientists, and even jesters were forced to associate with advertisers, distributors, agents, branders, promoters, guilds, and other middlemen in order to reach an audience. In essence these marketers took the place of the patrons.

Without the marketer or patron, the artist must pay the cost of bring their message to the audience. The cost in marketing an idea is monetary. Spreading ideas costs money for stickers, servers, fliers, posters, t-shirts, brochures, bullhorns, and the time of artists, philosophers, musicians, writers, orators, scientists, and yes... even jesters.

Why copyright doesn't work in the best interest of the creator.

When art is created in the United States of America, the creator is given governance over the creation in the form of copyright. Essentially, in layman's terms, this means that the creation is protected from being distributed by anyone other than the creator. (It is sometimes referred to by detractors as a "negative right" because it restrict others the right of creation.) One of the curious rights given to creators through copyright is the right to sell or license their rights to others.

This provision opened a gap for a middle tier in the distribution of art. Because creators often lack the ability to promote or distribute their own creations, third parties position themselves to profit from this inability. Promotion and distribution, however, is so powerful and important to artists that they will often sell or license their own copyrights in exchange for money (and normally not on the artist's best terms.) This removes the artist from having any control over their creation and allows the promoter or distributor to modify, mutate, recreate, change and created derivative works.

Basically, if an artist wants to be paid for their art they will most likely have to give up the rights to their art to a third party. Many artist find this odious at best.

Imagine, for a moment, that all the basic rights of copyright existed, with the exception that those rights could not be transferred to others. How would that change the way an artist's work was promoted and distributed?

How do collective entities created to defend participant's rights mutate and instead defend the entity itself?

Guilds and Unions have historically been created to defend the rights of specific classes of craftsmen (note the masculine is used lazily.) Often initially beneficial to its members by the power of unification, these entities eventually require an infrastructure to sustain themselves. What may start with a single or handful of leaders rallying a common class becomes an entity with paid employees, dues, internal politics, and contractual membership requirements.

Guilds and Unions can and do take the place of the middleman and act in the name of the creators who join them. Often these entities, in an attempt to survive, use the rights and power of the creators to ensure non-members are restricted from access to promoters and distributors, creating exclusivity. By leveraging it's members, the entity ensures its own survival by cutting off any outside competition. You must either join this entity or lose access to an audience. At this point the entity is now defending itself and is no longer serving the original intent of its creation. What started as a defensive action to protect a group becomes an offensive organization as rigid and damaging as those of promoters and distributors.

It's rare that an entity created to defend the rights of its members does not eventually attempt to defend itself. In its attempts to defend itself it often damages non-members of the same class and members who do not agree with its actions. The entity needs its members to feel that it is both beneficial to them and that its existence is essential to its members or it would cease to exist. Lazy membership (those who join an entity only to gain access to promoters and distributors but who do not need its protection) often follow the leaders of the entity without understanding the issues or thinking through the ramifications of the actions taken. Trusting that the entity will protect them, they are ignorant that an entity may take an action only to protect itself.

Thus we now have two middlemen between the artist and his audience. The first being the promoter and distributor, the second being the guild or union. In both cases the groups are attempting to gain from the works of the artist.

So what's your point?

Artists should stop giving up their rights.

There is hypocrisy in the statement "You will not have what I have" when the item is easily reproduced. It implies many things. It implies superiority and dominance. It implies a threat.

When the item is a weapon, it implies even more things. It implies governance, control and most of all fear. The United States of America fears. The United States of America is the only nation on earth to have used nuclear weapons and like any imbalance of power, they enjoy a domination of world events by possessing them.

With a nuclear weapon, Iran could join a small group of countries capable of massive destruction, elevating it's political power to that of super-power. Things change when you have a nuclear capability. Ask Israel.

No, you have security when you have nuclear weapons. You sleep well at night, knowing that anyone else who might think they could simply invade your sovereign nation would be wise to rethink such an attack in light of a nuclear response. After all, that's why the United States of America still has them.

Other weapon systems become obsolete over time. Last decades tank is no match for this decades tank. Fighter jets from the modern era destroy jets from the last era with ever even seeing them. Soon we wont need human soldiers at all, with drone and robot developers creating the next wave of fighters that will be capable of holding ground like real men and women.

These advances, as interesting as they are, have little to do with the destruction of an entire city in seconds. There is no counter to that. Next decades nuclear weapon will not do more than destroy that city. It's a final attack on a doomed target and it really is the top of the scale of weapons.

When the United Soviet Socialist Republic and the United States of America stood face to face with these weapons, they knew the risks. They called it "M.A.D." Mutually Assured Destruction. It's been said that any man can kill any other man, if he is willing to lose his life in the process. With nuclear weapons we have escalated that concept to countries.

When Iran acquires nuclear weapons, I have no doubt at all about the fact that they will, it will force the United States of America to make a choice. Do the citizens of the United States of America hold themselves up to a higher standard than they hold the Iranian citizen? For certainly if they are to be trusted with these weapons than how can they deny any nation the right to have them?

In it's Declaration of Independence, the phrase "all men are created equal" holds true beyond the borders of the United States of America. The phrase, while inaccurate, creates the basis of a document which follows: in which men are give inalienable rights. Assuming this, I can suggest a simple analogy that expresses my desires perfectly.

I suggest that "all countries are created equal."