Posted by GMAN on 01/16/03 11:53

In article <f290c21ot99af0h7h0pj23qev5e4f8dcir@4ax.com>, grant kinsley <sawbones@uniserve.com> wrote:
>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.
>


Actually you can thank the DMCA on William Jefferson Clinton.

>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.
>

[Back to original message]