Online prisons with sentences to program versus free download of information.

I shall commence this inquery by stating several viewpoints on modern infested by lobbyist attempt to claim internet. Internet presumably appears to understood as frontier free to claim. However unlike the frontiers of west noone delegates internet "land" apart from the right to own a server. Companies that distribute information are under the impression they "own" internet. When infact information resolved in a privilege of information as a new form of trade. Is file-sharing more democratic than buying a piece of information? A person downloads an mp3 file for instance without paying it's proprietor accepts this download as a gift. The thing is record labels control internet distributor companies while independant server distributors earn a foothold amongst users. For us that experienced the political independent times of internet we remember slower distribution though migthier quality. In modern search-capitalist proscription of the access to information results in a form of capitalist identity that neglects internet's original thought to distribute information freely. In a while the distributor companies greed will eventually assume lower prices to fight piracy. I have to mention their cynic approach with effect worldwide to diminish small independent radiostations by raising license payment. Now to the aquiry of information most evidently relevant information. Most users mainstream find that competition amongst a few extently large companies result in a less personal internet. I used to be a link surfer back in the days of a few good pages and to a certain extent these days were most certainly more clever for an independent curious fellow like me. Today a man has to search for a site in a search page which most of are funded by payment to advertise. However convenient it infests internet with capitalist ideas of ownership that does serve large companies. For example one has bought a computer and own this computer but cannot without a fee claim a part of internet. This is privilege for money folk and divides the net into consumer and owner. Another fishy thing about the net this days is commercialist interests to fund pages leading to an extent of irrelevant information. However evidently searching has not made it easier to surf a link to link thread. The internet before used to be more personal than it is today. An interesting definition of property must be that I own my computer and a modem and may therfore be a part of the internet. I believe different forms of passes or identities and memberships of internet societies/clubs/lodges give access to a privilege of relevant information. Maybe in the future we will see internet police/internet prisons and internet criminals getting arrested online and rather declined privileged information or sentenced to program. Another basic fact is that some parts of the market earns money on withhold of crucial information which is time-consuming and totally meaningless. A question here is also that certain nations does not prohibit freedom of information and are they as a result of this gaining an advance on other nations by not stalling folk caring to contribute. If I want to start a zine and don't have money why shouldn't I get to? Most folk certainly have the hardware to. On copyright violation it must be said that if every little file copy-righted couldn't be accessed freely their prices would fall immensely making it almost a laugh to pay. For us that spend hours a day on the internet without money or abilities to aquire information that must be bought it should be said that several benefactors should establish some sort of fundage to survey the net. Scholarships for instance or competitions to find certain information or online information bureaus with the right to access all information. Some companies sell copyright. I own my computer, therefor a part of the internet and should be allowed to freely distribute information from my computer. Any computer basically can be used as a server. Another question as well: Do you, my adversary, think private agents should control the internet by making laws stalling it's evolution? My opinion is economic hypocracy denies users to do anything but spend money. Though some companies allow users free space on their service as they are commercially funded why shouldn't any person owning a computer have the simple right to freely distribute any information locally as world-wide. Surely the folk that need information can and will find it eventually. How about an internet pass/identity/license for a free internet membership included when you buy a computer. I now mention the more than 10 years old idea of a super harddisk containing more information than a lifetime of reading. Another issue is that folk wanting to reach large ammounts of people with news do this on a basis of their privilege of knowing how to. As you know an attempt to claim a person's part of the net (as any computer owner connected is) should not be on account of political ideas nor economical inferiority. Internet has become consume-net don't you think? Now to internet prisons: As accessing copyrighted material freely is a question of a man's economic capacity these violators should be sentenced to provide free information for the ammusement and entertainment of ordinary consumers. How about a prison server with a game the violators has to play every day which folk may watch and even gamble on. Surely they would get tired and have low morality after a while teaching them a lesson. The virus makers on the other hand mostly having access to privileged OS information which probably some of are hired by companies should make these games as they are good programmers. Then, my adversary, is not owning parts of internet as a consumer defined by unpolitically motivated speculation attempting to dominate information with economic tendencies surpressing the poor? The internet needs a Robin Hood or a Sheriff of Nottingham?