A Little Rant About the State of Remote Viewing on Planet Earth
If you ask people in the remote viewing community, almost everyone says they want the field to grow. Every remote viewer says they wants remote viewing to spread across the world. However, here is my problem. When you look at the books and materials, so many of them say the same thing: copyright, copyright, do not copy my work, published under copyright, and so on. And that is where the issue begins.
Now compare that to something like blockchain, Bitcoin, or Ethereum. Bitcoin was published under an open-source license, and the technology spread very quickly. Ethereum, when it introduced the Ethereum Virtual Machine, also published its work openly. That is one of the main reasons it spread so fast: people were able to copy it, build on it, and improve it.
Now look at what has happened in the remote viewing community. There are many books, and with almost every book the message is the same: yes, you can read it, yes, you can use it, but you are not allowed to copy it, build on it, or make money from anything based on it, because it is protected by copyright. In practice, that means people are not really allowed to build on top of that work. And then people ask why the field is not expanding, why the community is not growing. Well, maybe this is one of the reasons. Maybe there is simply too much restriction placed on top of it.
Take Farsight, for example. If you look at the Farsight website, you can use the material for certain purposes, but not commercially, and you are not really allowed to build on top of it, because it is all under copyright. Even Courtney Brown has said, and almost boasted, that they are the only ones who hold the copyright to that content, and that no one else is allowed to make movies or other works based on what they have done. But I thought the goal was to spread the knowledge. And if you truly want to spread knowledge, then you should allow people to use your work, even commercially, and let them create thousands of videos, films, and projects presenting what Farsight has done.
Now, to be clear, I do understand that names like Farsight or SRV should be protected, because you do not want people pretending to be Farsight or falsely presenting themselves as part of that organization. That makes sense. But when it comes to the actual content of remote viewing sessions, I think the restrictions go too far. And Farsight is not the only example. If you look at Dick Allgire and the Future Forecasting Group, he often says in his videos that he wants remote viewing to expand. He talks about setting up foundations or structures that would help remote viewing grow. But then what do you hear as well? That you can buy a remote viewing course from him for one thousand or a couple thousand dollars.
As far as I know — and of course I do not know the entire internet — the only full remote viewing course available for free on YouTube is the one done by Aziz Brown, the one-on-one course with him. I am not aware of any other complete course. There are some partial courses from Farsight members, but they are usually short, incomplete, or more like fragments of a course. They never really go all the way through the full system the way his course does. So, as far as I can tell, that is the only free way to get a more complete introduction to remote viewing.
And yes, I understand that sometimes you may still need a tutor or instructor to really learn it properly and get better at it. But still - wow.
Maybe there are some other free courses out there that I have never heard of, and that is possible. But this is the only full one I know.
Even the courses by Courtney Brown that used to be available online - when I checked recently, only a few parts were still there, while the rest had been moved behind a paywall. And he is not the only one. Like I said, if you look at people like Dick Allgire and others, they talk a lot about remote viewing and about wanting it to grow, but in the end it often comes back to money, money, money.
And I do think that money has its place. People need money to expand their work, and if no one can build something sustainable around their own system, then growth also becomes difficult. I understand that part. But even so, I think things have gone too far. It feels strange that without paying, it is very difficult to learn much of anything in this field. In many other disciplines - for example coding - you can learn a great deal for free. But in remote viewing, that does not really seem to be the case.
I am not saying everything should be free. I have wrote a book about AI remote viewing myself. That is not my point. My point is that if people truly want the field to expand, then the knowledge that already exists should be available under some reasonable license. There should be a system where people can use what is already there, build on it, expand it, and create their own systems without worrying that they might be sued for using those ideas as a foundation. That is exactly what happened in cryptocurrency. Open-source systems allowed people to build on top of existing work, and as a result, those ecosystems grew into something massive with millions, even billions, of followers and users. But in remote viewing, it feels different. Yes, you can read the books, but you are not really allowed to build on top of the knowledge, because everything is locked down under copyright. Maybe there is simply too much control, too much restriction.
Again, I understand the need to protect names and identities. There should not be a fake Dick Allgire, a fake Future Forecasting Group, or a fake Farsight pretending to be the original. But I do not understand why everything else must be under strict copyright as well. Because if no one is allowed to use your work commercially, develop it, adapt it, and spread it further, then in the end you remain exactly where you are: the only one using it.
So maybe it is time to move away from strict copyright and toward a simpler, more open license - something like CC BY 4.0, where people are free to use the work as long as they provide proper attribution.
That is what I think.
I would really like to hear your opinion. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right.
Thank you.
