frankenfood stacey max keiser monsanto is in the news there's a case before the u.s. supreme court about this case the automatic earth dot com says time to stop monsanto and the u.s. supreme court now the case is called bowman versus monsanto company in this case number eleven dash seven nine six and the new york times in their piece about this and this is setting up the automatic earth dot com writing about it the supreme court appears to defend the patent on soybean the question in the case bowman versus months sent to a company number eleven dash seven one six was whether patent rights to seize and other things that can replicate themselves extend beyond the first generation the justices appeared alert to the consequences of their eventual ruling not only for months santo's very lucrative soybean patents but also from modern agriculture generally and for areas as varied as vaccines cell lines and software well yeah the

patents for c. that are owned by monsanto are there for one purpose and one purpose only to rise and raise the cost of food just like you have central banks who are in the business of manipulating rates interest rates and money flows to raise the cost of agriculture in general for people by debasing currencies there's monsanto on the other side of this trade they're the beneficiary of debasement of currencies by monopolizing seat and cash crops and making it impossible for people to grow food and grow cash crops or agricultural products in ways that are economically efficient so this is monsanto adding to the gulag if occasion of the global economy there they're the one of the i think the most hated company in the world maybe exxon or monsanto they those are the two most hated company do the most damage to the world they're economically doing the most damage to the world and they're run

by people who are obviously in league with the devil. don't mention it their name to a vietnam vet for example i made the mistake of saying that name to my uncle who is in vietnam they don't like them but you know before the supreme court in this case that the supreme court justices didn't seem very favorable to month santo and why in the world chief justice john g. roberts jr asked would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if i soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want right of course you mentioned the vietnam war in reference to the agent orange that they used to defoliate and that's the primary their business is to destroy a culture and if they can do so by passing seas and by gaming the intellectual property laws then so much better and of course the other magical thinking that goes into monsanto's mind is that when the seeds blow around thanks to the wind they land on people's property they then sue people for having seeds on their

property that are patented by monsanto that the wind blew there so effectively monsanto is suing god their position is that god is a moron according to monsanto which i guess is in keeping in today's world of retiring popes and other things that are going on well the sheer fact is by chief justice roberts argument we humans would still be hunting gathering why the hell would we even bother to plant seeds and cultivate and go through all that work if nobody was going to pay us to do it right because this is adding to the public domain this is adding to the public's knowledge this is adding to our experience as human beings what chief justice knucklehead is saying is that every time he farts he wants to get paid for it because he has the d.n.a. of his fart the question in this case is this farmer the seventy six year old farmer from indiana he's ok with the notion of copyright and life and copywriting

genes and now month sento basically only. the entire soybean supply in all of america they have ninety three percent of the market because they innovated a little tiny fragment of the gene so essentially they've been awarded the patent for all soybean seeds because they own the entire supply right then it's a vertical devastation and that they also so fertilizers that only work with their patented products they sell various other extensions and brand extensions and intellectual property extensions that only work with monsanto as product there is their hardcore monopoly which are drive prices up in india where monsanto's active and they've been it belated in and patented seeds you've got something like two thousand indian farmers committing suicide it could be every week so a number of that hide magnitude and that'll be the case of farmers around the world of months until has their way i'm sure that goldman sachs will package suicide farmer collateralized debt obligations and make additional money on farmers killing themselves the automatic earth says for ten thousand to twenty thousand years

people all over the world have been improving agricultural crops and multiple ways changing plants from their wild origins to their present domesticated versions one of the most important changes obviously has been to make it easier to save seeds and plant these in the new year for the next harvest no mean feat monsanto now simply takes all of this away in just a few years time with impunity and with encouragement from the u.s. government and supreme court right i mean it's important to keep in mind that they're not as agricultural innovators they're agricultural monopolists that's a big difference there anti competition there anti agriculture they're trying to turn seeds into a currency and they want to monopolize that currency and they're doing a great job doing it of course the supreme court which is now heavily favored toward corporations will go along with this scheme and the net result will be higher prices and starvation and of course because like lloyd blankfein of goldman sachs they believe they're doing god's work well look down from there my position

of intellectual property mount olympus i just say well you dive you started that you deserved it and we're monsanto to hell with you. to put that into context this copyright in the control of the food system a study by the center for food safety found that fifty three percent of the world's commercial seed market is controlled by just three firms months dupont and said gent but that's not competition anyone who argues in behalf of monsanto is arguing against free markets they're arguing against competition they're arguing against agriculture as something that is to some degree a human right that people have been cultivating crops for thousands of years and yet that that embedded knowledge now is being decimated by a predatory monopolist in the form of monsanto for predatory profits which they will use to influence peddling washington to extend their their monopoly in areas other than just agriculture because of course are in bed with that other that other

sick whacko bill gates who is a huge investor in monsanto look at he did with the software industry and microsoft destroyed it well microsoft is actually coming up in this next headline here because they're involved in this case they've issued their own statements regard in support of my centrist position but before we go on to that i want to mention that the automatic earth asks and if a farmer cannot own his seeds what about his animals what if my santa figures out a gene variation that limits your own personal risk of a disease say cancer does it own you out right then or will it only give you the choice between becoming a debt slave or dying young well they argue for private property rights and i would say that there's a difference between private property rights and monopolies you know you need monopolies and free competition don't exist harmoniously and this is a play for monopolizing this industry in a way that not only is anti-competitive but it's it's anti human it's borderline

you genesis them is what it is you have to go back to experiments of eugenics to find something as abhorrent as a monsanto and what they're doing with seeds so earlier you brought up microsoft so i want to get back to them because if my ten toes wins this. in front of the supreme court an important precedent has been set for other areas regarding copyright this is from bloomberg monsanto j.c. penney else of their intellectual property and in this they talk about the case before the supreme court february nineteenth a decision comes down in june b.s.a. the software alliance whose members include apple and microsoft told the court that eliminating patent protection for self replicating seeds could facilitate software piracy research universities and biotechnology companies say a victory by bowman would harm their ability to license their work in cancer research crop protection and nutrition well the supreme court

is is shockingly on the side of eugenics in this case. d.n.a. works by making a copy of itself that is the fundamental basis of human life of all life on this planet here you want monsanto and microsoft to say no to life they want to own replication and only intellectual property for all copying down to the level of seeds and and zygotes of human reproduction and the ability for cells to reproduce to heal if you get cut and your body starts to heal itself microsoft will say well we own the patent on the d.n.a. that you're using against our patent to heal you have to send us the checks are and will release a version of the pad but only if you agree with us politically or even support our a continuation become fully integrated monopolies if you don't they don't get the

cure you're going to die well regarding this notion that they own the rights to life finally on this story the automatic earth sums up our right to feed our children has been made subordinate to the right of chemical companies to change the very food we count on to keep our children fed to top it all off that modern food industry claims that it alone provides the necessary tools without which our children would go hungry god's work indeed makes you wonder what keeps the devil occupied these days but they have succeeded in alienating people from themselves and the people are so confused they don't know anymore what the what they represent as human beings anymore they're stressed out their own drugs are eating month genetically modified food they're dying life expectancy is decreasing and the amount sent and bill gates are laughing all the way to the bank and now finally regarding that bloomberg headline i mentioned elsevier and this is the company of course for which aaron swartz died because he was downloading this taste or

documents and read else if there is one of these companies that hold all this intellectual property from various public entities whether schools. or court systems so a federal judge in new york dismissed a copyright infringement case two attorneys brought against newton massachusetts based reed elsevier and west publishing corporation edward l. white of oklahoma city kenneth land of new york sued in february two thousand and twelve claiming that the publication of their court filings in west litigator and also his lexis nexis legal database infringe their copyrights they jacked it to the commercial use of this they were doing their job in court reed elsevier was taking their content and selling it behind putting it behind a copyright wall even though the courts the federal courts are financed by we the people and they make a profit from it and the courts decide and of course the favor of the major corporation. for other number but i'm up there bill gates alonso have to open up a trap door. i think they're back to watch me on the gaza report humans now go away

much more coming our way stay right there. are some people extreme cold isn't a chilling threat to life a women of death it's a cooling if you look you can see that the water in thought who writes in my body feels really warm now this is good for you. they plunge into icy water to make themselves stronger you can't get used to the cold if you want but you can tolerate it and you can struggle with. people of snow and ice victims of frost. surviving the cold city. do we speak your language anybody will not advance. news programs and documentaries and spanish what matters

to you breaking news a little too negative angles couldn't stories. you hear. say that troy all teach spanish find out more visit. tito it's comb.

welcome back to the kaiser report imax keyser time now to go up to washington d.c. and speak with eric hilton of favorite corporation washington d.c. based recording artist and d.j. duo eric reached out to kaiser report equal emphasis favorite show to debate my position on copyright and file sharing eric welcome to the kaiser report thanks max nice to be here all right eric hilton you wrote to made a tommy were against my position on copyright so tell us about your position on copyright and so called illegal downloading or as some call are calling up file sharing what is your position well my position is that you know file sharing is here to stay and people are going to file share but there's a lot of money being made on file sharing and you know like the who said same as the meet the new boss same as the old boss the highest peas and google and you tube

are the ones making all the money on the file sharing and the artists are really suffering right now and i don't think that music is free i think that the more money may be made off music now than ever before but it's being made by the i is t's google you tube and i think that you know the one percent is just getting richer and the one percent now is the sort of techno feudalistic system that basically making money off free music ok well at the root of this file sharing debate it goes back to copyright and copyright law and there are those who believe that there should not be any copyright law at all there are those up believe there should be a much more limited copyright law perhaps fourteen years or twenty eight years as it was originally written in the the american constitution and then of course you have the copyright as interpreted by. by corporations like disney which is lifetime

plus seventy five years of copyright protection protection where do you fall in terms of copyright law what do you believe should be the correct law for copyright i think you'd be surprised that our views on copyright are fairly similar i think there should be limited copyright probably the original statute in the constitution i think the disney ruling was pretty ridiculous. you know you shouldn't have lifetime plus seventy years you know copyright is important i do believe there is copyright i mean even noam chomsky copyright says material you know many people believe in copyright but it can be very oppressive and i don't agree with the disney decision at all right so we have some common common ground here in terms of copyright as it's currently in aerated is what lawrence lessig would call perpetual copyright and it's extremely damaging to artists because what happens is that idea

is end up being perpetually locked up behind corporate firewalls and this isn't doing anybody any good so i mean it seems as though we agree on that's not part of this of this debate well i absolutely agree but i think that art is sometimes make very foolish decisions like signing to a major label like one of the reasons we call ourselves thievery corporation is that we're a d.i.y. company we never signed to a major label we own our copyrights we set up our own distribution networks and we financed everything we bootstrapped it and financed everything for a self we never sold our souls to any major label or any large corporation we're we're sort of a mom and pop you know four man operation with an engineer and we pay health care and salaries you know so we're definitely not the enemy you know we're not we're not warner brothers we're not one of the big major labels trying to restrict copyright for you know. patootie ok now in your e-mail to me you mentioned the

ramones you're saying while the remount would never have happened had they tried to start their band in a post a bit torrent era not so this someone on our site named bill asked the question well what about all the talented musicians that we never heard of because they couldn't make it through the old music system so there's a bit of a quid you know it goes both ways there your thoughts both through the old music system was very corrupt so i actually agree with you that you know i'm not a big fan of the major labels obviously but a band like the ramones or the sex pistols or the clash or any of these bands public enemy that we love and adore or at least i do they needed the support of the label because basically they would toward a loss because most bands even today tour at a loss and they tour so that they can generate sales of their records but if there are no sales you can't tours so you can't even get off the ground it's kind of like a plane that can't gain altitude and you know i know that the ramones signed to

fire records in the late seventy's and sawyer put a lot of money behind them to tour and they toured and then they sold records and then they recoup that money and i hope they made some money when you signed to a major label that's a crap shoot you know i would never do it but you know you really can't get off the ground without some sort of tour support is really expensive the tour now of course going back as thirty or forty years we gave music away free on something called the radio and played by just jockeys and you can hear it in your car for frey and then you went out and bought a record of that song and now we've got digital replication of the stands people come by i tunes are bypassing that completely and are just downloading music for free but the economics are that you still have the ability to get new acts out there on a relatively cheap basis who are then to. orang and getting their music heard and

a lot of musicians are making a living that would not have made a living before at all i don't know i would have to agree with you with the radio but the when you're dead music played on radio ascap or b.m.i. actually correct collect some sort of performance royalty and you actually get paid but on the internet that's not really the case and you know you look at companies like you know here we have a big guy a species in washington everyone has giant eyes peas you have google they're making hand over fist money but there's really no royalty for the artist so the real content on the internet look at a site like pirate bay which you know i think that was a brilliant idea but really pirate bay and the torrent sites are trading mostly in creative content like something like ninety nine percent or a very large portion of that content is film and music and there is really no royalty structure so you know essentially artists are are in the sort of surf like

you know lifestyle right now and least the radio generates some royalty for the artist but the internet isn't generating any royalties for the artist are let's talk about another entrepreneur cam dot com in new zealand he will soon launch his service called mega box now this is a site for artists to upload their content they will keep ninety percent of all revenues earned. his site mega upload at one point he had five percent of the global traffic he was considered to be a threat to the our i am the m p a and they took his site down but he's coming back with a mega box the model as artists keep ninety percent of any revenues earned your thoughts i think it's a great idea he also sold a lot of ad revenue if i'm not mistaken i'm not sure if he's shared any of that ad revenue with the artists. and i'm not really familiar with any quote unquote

copyright. infringement but any new paradigm is very welcome to me and other artists we don't see technology is the enemy we see technology as the solution right now we're on the wrong side of it you know i do think that we're being exploited by the i s p's and the search engines but i do think that technology will be the solution and so you know i'm very open to ideas like that now let's talk a minute about the recording industry association of america the our i am a it's a vengeful lobbyist for big music your thoughts on their actions and similar intellectual property lobbying groups that have passed three strikes laws around the world so they are i a they are extremely aggressive they sue their customers they supposedly represent you the artist what are your thoughts out what they're doing though they don't represent me because they were represent the major labels and certainly they don't represent the artists i'm not sure the major labels even represent the artists and

i'm also very embarrassed to have the backdrop of the white house behind me right now because i'm not speaking in any official position i'm not a fan of the r i a very much disagree with their attempts at prosecuting individual downloader as i see that is something akin to the drug war where you go out and you arrest the kid with a small bag of weed but you don't bust the dealer i mean they're really attacking the wrong people and their tactics are wrong and i don't agree with them. so eric elton is the every corporation is eric hilton taking a political position against onerous copyright law i guess i am ex maybe won me over. ok fair enough but i think what we do we agree and that there is room for a copyright monopoly protection for a limited time possibly as it was structured in the constitution of united states

anyway twenty eight years but let's talk a little bit about the fact about these business models because you've suggested that new technology could be the solution new business models could be in the kim dot coms model looks like it's going to be a big winner for ham. but nevertheless what about the studies that show that downloader of free stuff actually end up spending more on content more than other people do now this was demonstrated in france when they had dopey three strikes law saw illegal downloads decline but record sales declined even more i guess the question is that is there room any room at all for free stuff on the web as because you as as an artist at some point and this is what the creative commons is very good at the lawrence lessig and eric schwartz project. you do want

to give some stuff away free there is a structure to protect it is a room for that and all aaron absolutely i do think there is a file sharing it in its core is a wonderful thing you know david byrne said something though that i think is pretty pression he said when you share a file or a cd with your friend that's actually sharing but when you just upload entire catalogs of music you know into a torrent site for free so that everyone can just take from them that's almost like like looting you know that goes a little bit far and if you look at actually the large upload years of music on the torrent sites usually it's only a few people it might be in the hundreds that that upload giant cad catalogs of music if it's just peer to peer person to person hey i like this record they're talking they're communicating i don't have a problem with that that's just that's friendly fire file sharing and i do think

there there always will be file sharing and they should not be persecuting the young people and it is mostly young people because maybe they can even afford the music i've been there you know when i was a kid i spent most of my discretionary income which wasn't very much on records and you know it it did make me broke i did get a lot of great music from it too but i understand why people do it but at the same time we can't just create a culture of free stuff because artists are sort of the canary in the coal mine and i do agree i really think that there is this sort of techno gulag being created and if you ever look at the history of like fascist takeovers the first people to go are the dissidents and the artists and when the artists can't make a living and they have to go you know work as a barista or something other than their craft you know you are suppressing art ok eric calton we're out of time thanks for coming on the show. thanks for coming out

guys report thanks max i'm going to continue to enjoy your show and part of the silver liberation army right out all right and that's going to do it for this edition of the kaiser report with me max kaiser and stacy herbert our thank my guest eric hilton of favorite corporation join us i mean email place to sell at kaiser report r.t. t.v. dot argue until next time backscatter saying bio. do hack work and get caught when lobbyists money and lawmakers are combined together that's where the problem of corruption comes from.

i don't know the document's. keep up a smart look. there is also. another world behind which is how to influence the institutions steer clear of provocations don't answer any question. came into the office and found banners around the office and lots of strange faces around them and said what's what's happening will somebody please tell me what's going on and they said oh we've come to occupy your building. possibly they want to do a confrontation possibly they wanted me to ring up the police have the police come in through the money. didn't seem to be a good idea to learn the european way with brussels business. in the uk kristie it's one person one told. in brussels business it's one euro one folds.

cluck. cluck. cluck. if. the. syrian rebels say they'll keep.