|
|
Posted by grant kinsley on 09/26/04 11:53
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:30:07 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:17:58 -0700, Haddatten Huttendrut
><none@nothing.net> wrote:
>
>>You don't understand the law, and have taken a very broad (and incorrect)
>>interpretation.
>
>Tell that to EPIC. They are working on law suits along the very lines
>I have been stating.
>
>No law in the US is so absolute that it deserves your unflinching
>obedience. Every law is subject to the consent of the governed, and
>judging from the number of people who share entertainment material
>freely, there are a large number of people who do not consent to be
>governed according to your interpretation of the law.
>
>>> 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
>
>I am a Texas Conservative.
explains a lot. These are the same sorts that crafted the DMCA and are
working against net neutrality. As well as appointing the "judicial
activists" that are extraordinarily friendly to allowing the oil
companies write the energy laws and the entertainment industries write
copyright laws and having the telecom corps write internet
regulations, all at the behest of Tom Delay's K street project.
Talk about supporting the politicians who are most likely to see your
claims as wrong (as they make the corporations unhappy)
and by the way, the judicial activists in the case of wanting to make
even time shifting illegal were the conservatives on the court.
Justice Rehnquist was one of the dissenting opinions in the Sony
Betamax case.
>
>>> I will give my consent to be governed by the laws passed by Congress.
>
>>Fine, so far.
>
>Congress is the one that passed a Fair Use law for entertainment. It
>says simply that an individual can make copies and share with friends
>as long as he does not "distribute" the material for profit.
Making shit up I see. The concept of whether time-shifting is fair use
is stated within the Betamax ruling, a decision made by the court.
Note that distribution does not need to be for profit. One only needs
to show that such distribution devalues the future potential of profit
of the product.
Now if you want to see what your dear conservative friends in the
congress do with the concept of copying, have a gander at the DMCA.
The conservatives are the ones in the pocket of the entertainment
corporations, and the laws they like to make are the very ones you
don't like.
>
>Then along come the greedy filthy lawyers of the entertainment
>industry making their own laws from the judicial bench and we are
>supposed to hop when they say "Jump". No fucking way, buddy.
>
>>> 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.
>
>There is no "Judicial Branch". There are only two branches of the
>federal govt. The judiciary is a creature of Congress. The job of the
>Judiciary is to enforce the laws, not make the laws.
>
>Read the US Constitution.
>
>>Do you hate America?
>
>I hate tyranny, Do you love America so much that you are willing to
>let it subjugate you? You must be one of those leftist queer
>collectivists.
>
>>> 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?
>
>I am not supporting any video piracy (Fair Use is not what it is).
>
>Is getting down on your knees and sucking some judge's dick 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?
>
>Straw man.
>
>>> If you succumb to it, you are not a citizen - you are a peasant.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|