The Lockean theory of value and property, whereby ownership over goods and prope rty is determined by the

labour exerted by individuals in the production of thos e goods or use of property toward such an end, is invoked in support of much of the anti- anti-copyright arguments. Without being able to enjoy the fruits of our labour as we see fit, society descends into utter anarchy and decay. With Commun ism we saw that forcing or requiring labourers to share the fruits of their labo ur with others was not a valid tactic for the perpetuation of a functional socie ty. What if we were compelled to share that which we work so hard for with as ma ny as we could think might stand to benefit from our energies? Compelled by a so urce none other than our very own conscience? Inspired, perhaps, by the realizat ion of the immeasurable benefits brought forth upon society through the activati on of its collective conscience? Im not talking about CEOs writing more tax-deduc tible cheques to charity organizations, or finding ways to make yourself look go od on paper. Im suggesting, rather, that if everyone made an effort to stop whate ver it was they were doing (if at all possible) and help someone in need, should they cross paths with you, that maybe this is all it would take. Altruism has no place in the foundations of Western common-law. It is inherently self-serving, requiring all whom it blankets in its authority to conform to the values of individualism and empiricism. It uses our senses in the perpetuation of a divisive society it sees as orderly. Order in this court of British admiral ty, I say, I say! The slaves upon this ship shall be divided up in that fashion which is most conducive to order amongst individual subjects of the British Empi reas her Majesty the Queen decrees it! I bring up the value of altruism here beca use Id like to think that a lot of musicians are prone to the scorn of our societ y for being unconditionally loving, free-spirited, and easy-going. I say scorn b ecause these qualities in a musician usually lend themselves to censure by that lot of society which sees the free-loading musician as an unfair burden upon those members of society exerting their energies toward more socially conservative en ds. For a more specific example, go see that new movie Our Idiot Brother, and pret end that Paul Rudds character is a musician instead of an organic farmer. File sharing on the Internet represents an evolution in societal behaviour. When society evolves, so must its laws. To try and stop the file sharing movement is to try and stop the Titanic from sinking. That album that Rihanna made it is not hers, but everyones to enjoy. We all add immeasurable value to it simply by list ening to and talking about it. We are not, however, entitled to a share of her a lbum royalties. But even this is changing. Crowd-funding is the big bad wolf blo wing on the copyright industrys straw hut. From film to literature, software to m usic, crowd-funding gives participants a share in the profits, in exchange for t heir initial financial support. I dare say that soon enough, a secondary stage w ill evolve in the crowd-funding Internet craze. Those who employ their social ca pital, in addition to or instead of their financial capital, toward those ends w hich the content creator seeks to achieve, will also be awarded a share in the p rofits. While a thousand dollars might result in a 1% share of profits, a millio n people are potentially able to provide this support to the content creator. In contrast, a much smaller number of the content creators fans are maven trend-set ters, with the ability to turn the project into a hot commodity in the public sp here. Is this not worthy of remuneration in the form of profit sharing? This is but one tiny example of something that copyright law and the old social c ontract mentality do not take into account. Our world is as much an empirical one , divided by that which we process through the senses, as it is a part of a larg er puzzle where all parts fit into the whole. The school of British empiricism t hat underlies our system of laws is in conflict with this latter perspective. I am not saying that this school of thought is evil or that it should be ignored a nd done away with. It served its purpose in the reduction and dissection of all of earths empirically discernible parts. Perhaps now, with the collapse of the se cond British empire (the United States), it might be time to piece all of these individual parts back into the whole. Just as the great engineers of modern west

ern philosophy broke down our world into smaller, more manageable parts, we must now be the engineers of a post-modernism where we rearrange the pieces into a b etter, happier world. Our social capital or the way we treat each other should h old the most value in society. Its difficult to remember sometimes because its not what we see on highway billboards, or what gets traded on the stock market. But it is tangible, it is perceivable. You just cant touch, smell, see, hear, or tas te it. And yet, you can feel it, whenever and whatever it is you share.