Posted by Citizen Bob on 11/06/06 14:09

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:55:12 GMT, jayembee
<jayembeenospam@snurcher.com> wrote:

>>> Those laws are illegitimate, and therefore do not bind.

>> Even legitimate laws do not bind if they are unpopular enough -
>> like Prohibition.

>Yes, they do. Prohibition *was* binding as long as it was the law.

It was "binding" only if enforced at the end of a gun barrel.

Is that the way you want to live? Then don't come to Texas because
that is not how we live.

>And it was binding law until Congress amended the Constitution to
>repeal it.

What a farce.

>That's PTravel's point. Laws are binding, period. To make them no
>longer binding, they have to be rescinded as law.

You are a statist.

Seig Heil! Now go out in the street and practice your goosestepping.

>Whether the copyright laws can (and should) be repealed is another
>issue. As long as they *are* the law, they are binding.

They are not binding in terms of the consent of the governed.

Let me prove that to you. Imagine that I gave you a copy of
copyrighted material. I did not charge you for it, only for the cost
of the DVD disc. Then you have me indicted for violating this "law"
you claim binds me.

I require a trial by a jury of my peers, who are fellow Houstonians. I
select a jury that is reasonable. I present my case, as I have here. I
claim Fair Use because you fall under the definition of a friend. You
are an acquaintance, you are not hostile to me, etc. (see earlier post
for a discussion of the definition of "friend").

The jury deliberates and one juror among the 12 jurors agrees with me
for whatever reason. He or she votes "Not Guilty". He or she does not
have to justify his or her vote. If pressured to give a reason, he or
she says "the persecution failed to make its case beyond all
reasonable doubt".

Because of the hung jury (assuming one or more jurors voted "Guilty")
I am exonerated because I maintain my innocence. The persecution is
going to have to try me a secnd time, which is very unlikely because
he/she/it knows that I am protected by Fair Use.

Therefore the law you claim is binding is not really binding -
especially if I and my P2P friends are willing to take the case to a
jury of our peers. Anyway, even if we lose we will win on appeal - and
that can start the ball rolling towards an eventual Supreme Court
challenge. That court is going to expand the meaning of Fair Use to
include P2P networks.

The really sad irony of all this is that the greedy pricks (lawyers)
in the entertainment industry are shooting themselves in the balls
(quite a feat when you realize they don't have any). P2P boosted CD
sales of music by 15% when Napster was active. It's called Marketing
101. Get the product in front of the customer base and they will buy
it, even when it's free. Just make it worth while to buy it.

I will rent DVDs from Netflix for a buck a whack rather than fuck
around with P2P. For one thing I get subtitles and other goodies that
P2P does not have. People only resort to P2P when they have no other
recourse. That's because the greedy pricks in the entertainment
industry make it difficult or too costly to get the product by any
other means. Why should someone pay $600-800 per year for Cable TV
just to watch one or two shows each week, when they can download them
from P2P?


--

"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
--Clarence Darrow

[Back to original message]