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. Is file-sharing more democratic than buying a piece of information?" Democratic in this sense only points to more people wishing to violate copyright than there are creators of a particular piece of data. "For us that experienced the political independent times of internet we remember slower distribution though migthier quality." People became aware of the utility of downloading so created services to enable it, if you have an issue with quality, I hold no sympathy, stealing gold then complaining it is tarnished is likewise an empty complaint. "In modern search-capitalist proscription of the access to information results in a form of capitalist identity that neglects interne's original thought to distribute information freely." A weird appeal to tradition. Free access would be shouting it on the local street corner - the payoff for a larger distribution is the requirement of other people's minds, abilities and services they offer. "Most users mainstream find that competition amongst a few extently large companies result in a less personal internet." Wth is a personal internet? "Today a man has to search for a site in a search page which most of are funded by payment to advertise." The question then becomes, why should they bother to create a search engine? If you have the skills to create one, go for it, since I am assuming you don't, play by the rules of those that can. :) "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." As is most things - because humans are traders. Should a car entitle you to free petrol? A plate to free food? Demanded from whomever you choose? "If I want to start a zine and don't have money why shouldn't I get to?" Because ones need is not a valid claim on another's production. If you think your zine content will be marketable, find a backer, or a cheap photocopier. "For us that spend hours a day on the internet without money or abilities to aquire information that must be bought..." This is all rhetoric that one man's production entitles you to it somehow. The vast amount of time you spend on the internet could be likewise spent earning value for exchange, solving the issue. Instead you hold out your hand and demand from others what they produce, simply because you desire it, without considering what is needed to earn what you desire. "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." You own your computer; therefore you own your computer. That's it. An ISP is a *service* that most wish money in exchange for (excluding government tax funded access). There are already browser applications that allow you to treat your computer as a server and host your own content. The reason why it's unwieldy for most is that most home users generally can't handle the bandwidth required of heavy traffic. The option is still there however. :) "Another question as well: Do you, my adversary, think private agents should control the internet by making laws stalling it's evolution?.." The options are available, free, and it's derived from the very thing you seek to annul, market share with competition driving technology and services - browsers are a good example. "How about an internet pass/identity/license for a free internet membership included when you buy a computer." It's even cheaper than that, it's called a library card in most cases, where other people are paying so you can use it. "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." Depends what sort of news you mean, major news broadcasters through funding, are able to send employers to locations where news worthy events occur, and broadcast them, where they can't they use what larger affiliate services they are a part of to the same effect - if you think you can compete at a state, national or global level for access to information, go for it, if your resources limit that, then just what news do you wish to spread - given your original content level will low? If you lack the necessary skills, and delivering news is something you seek..learn those necessary skills. "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." This is part of what drives it to thrive, spread, expand - without much value created in using the internet; it would remain little more than a message board. It's the applications of the internet to those minds who are able to conceive opportunities from it, that drive the technology, the browser you use, the tools and services you can employ, that makes reaching a global audience possible. "As accessing copyrighted material freely is a question of a man's economic capacity" Not all information is copyrighted, that there is, is the property of the creator, and in some cases handled via a distributor. To wish otherwise, to demand that the works, effort, of any one person should be free to another removes the central pin of what drives that industry, and those in it, to continue to produce works. You would essentially create a level of production on par with hobbyists, with the quality of the products at that level. By condemning the value in what they produce by demanding it be free, you condemn the creation and drive of works of value. If there is something you value, work till you have enough to exchange for it. Nothing in a things creation entitles you to its access. "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." One could not enforce it certainly, though it's no different than betting on the outcome of a horse race - and watching/betting on game play at a less than pro level seems counter intuitive to entertainment. "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" If you have information that virus makers arise from Microsoft, please present it. Viruses/Trojans are now a form of illegal business, they target Microsoft OS because the majority of computer users employ it - it's about effort versus the return. Viruses do not target Linux and to a lesser extent Apple users, because the market share is so small as to not warrant the investment. "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 poor are not suppressed; they have the same opportunity to gain value for exchange. There is nothing stopping them that doesn't exist for others, they are not a special target group. "The internet needs a Robin Hood or a Sheriff of Nottingham?" Neither. The Sheriff was an extortionist and a thief, Robin was just a hypocritical thief. Humans cannot create the sum total of their needs. We do not all possess the necessary skills, nor do we own the total materials we need for production. Humans to thrive, must trade value for value. It's this exchange of goods, worth, businesses of enterprise that make the internet the expansive experience it is. So no, we don't need more thieves, more people demanding and taking whatever they desire (intent is irrelevant, theft is theft) - we need, simply, more traders, more willing minds.