|
|
Posted by J. Clarke on 12/14/06 04:00
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:52:07 -0800, PTravel wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:elorp00tnq@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:45:00 +1300, Colin B wrote:
>
>> We may be at the beginning of a sea-change in perceptions of intellectual
>> property with regard to video. If enough of the public decides that they
>> want video to be freely copiable then the legislators won't have any
>> choice but to tell the MPAA to go pound sand and remove copyright
>> protection from such material.
>
> Complete nonsense.
In what way?
> First of all, the Constitution reserves exclusive
> rights to copyright owners in Article I, Section 8.
At one time the Constitution prohibited the sale and consumption of
alcohol. If there is a consensus then the Constitution can be changed.
> Second of all, copyright
> owners are businesses that pay taxes and, more importantly, pay
> lobbyists.
The same was true of brewers, vintners, and distillers and they got shut
down anyway.
> Youtube copyright infringers are children and very young
> adults who don't work, don't create content and, most likely, don't
> vote.
You've determined this how? And what happens when those "children and
very young adults" get older?
> Just because that group might like to legalize intellectual
> property theft doesn't mean that (1) the majority of Americans would
> approve, and (2) Congress would be inclined to amend the Constitution
> and pass legislation that would enable IP theft.
And it doesn't mean that they wouldn't, either.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|