|
|
Posted by Phat Bytestard on 07/20/06 03:32
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:17:58 -0700, Haddatten Huttendrut
<none@nothing.net> Gave us:
>In article <44be2f60.261673156@news-server.houston.rr.com>, spam@uce.gov (Bob)
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:40:37 GMT, grant kinsley
>> <sawbones@uniserve.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>You are not aware of what Fair Use means.
>>
>> >Fair Use by it's very definition excludes distribution (whether for
>> >profit or not) of complete works. Fair use allows copying of small
>> >segments of a work within the body of another work for example use,
>> >provided it's appropriatly referenced.
>>
>> Then explain why people can make copies of TV programs in entirety as
>> long as its not for profit. You can even show the program to a friend.
>
>You can tape a TV show to watch later, as many times as you want. You can
>invite friends over to watch it. You are violating the law if you make copies
>to give away, but for practical reasons, if you make a couple copies for
>friends, nobody is going to prosecute (or even know about it). Start making &
>distributing copies in the triple digits, and it might get someone's attention.
>Add orders of magnitude, and the chances increase.
>
>> Congress settled this issue in favor of the consumer many years ago
>> when Sony tried to take over home recording. You can do what you want
>> as long as it does not result in a profit.
>
>You don't understand the law, and have taken a very broad (and incorrect)
>interpretation.
>
>> I realize that there has been an extensive agenda of Judicial
>> Activism, where courts attempt to write laws. And they get by with it
>> because it takes so long to fight it in the Supreme Court, and even
>> then the chances for overturning judicial activism is not all that
>> good.
>
>You must be a right-wing conservative, or Libertarian - "any interpretation of
>law that I don't like is judicial activism."
>
>> I will give my consent to be governed by the laws passed by Congress.
>
>Fine, so far.
>
>> I will not consent to greedy lawyers buying crooked judges who screw
>> around with the law for the benefit of special interests.
>
>The Judicial Branch of the US gov't is a very important element. Do you hate
>America?
>
>> You can put
>> a gun to my head and I still will not consent to be governed that way.
>
>Is video piracy (which is what it is) that important to you?
>
>> That is not the Rule of Law, it is the Rule of Men.
>
>Are you going to start quoting the Bible at us now?
>
>> If you succumb to it, you are not a citizen - you are a peasant.
>
>Do you hate America?
Interesting observations.
I wonder if the dot gov in his info is real?
Just rest in the knowledge that you do not sport some of the severe
character flaws that some others do (points finger at a pirate).
Here in Calif. there are folks that act like you are wrong for
bringing something they did wrong up. They, and even folks around them
turn the tables on you as if you are the one that did something wrong,
all the while stating the most retarded remark I have ever heard "It's
all good." So it's good for them to fuck up, but it's not good for
you to let them know about it when they do.
NO, IT IS NOT all good!
This country has some problems, but it the best that has ever come
down the pike.
It could use some petty piracy enforcement though. Perhaps
extracting some cash from their asses could bolster the coffers a bit.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|