|
|
Posted by Haddatten Huttendrut on 10/07/30 11:53
In article <44bf6748.2400515@news-server.houston.rr.com>, 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.
What's EPIC? A buncha activist lawyers?
> 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.
It isn't an issue of freedom, it's an issue of ownership. You do not own the
videos that you rent, or even that you watch off the air. The whole reason that
the video rental/purchase business exists is to make a profit for those who do
own the material. Your notion that once the material is in your sweaty little
fists, it's free for you to do what you wish with it in the way of distribution
(as long as you don't make a profit) is absurd on its face. If you got your
way, there would no longer be any reason for video providers to provide the
service.
Do you support rights of ownership, or are you a commie bastard? :}
> >> 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.
How do you reconcile your belief that media is free for trading by non-owners,
with other beliefs that I'm sure you hold regarding private ownership?
> >> 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.
That isn't exactly what it says.
> 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.
Congress makes laws. Judges interpret them, and determine their
constitutionality. Lawyers make arguments based on their interpretations, and
sometimes test the limits. It's the way America is designed to work.
Sometimes it doesn't work well. The blank tape tax to make up for lost
royalties due to copying was a bad idea, as it penalizes those with legitimate
uses for blank tapes. Banning bittorrent software would be a bad idea, for the
same reason. However, use of bittorrent to distribute copyrighted, licensed
material to unknown numbers of computer geeks is clearly misuse of the medium,
and a violation of the rights of the copyright holders.
If you were capable of producing any intellectual property of your own, you
might see this differently.
> >> 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.
Bullshit.
--
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|