[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:19:45 -0800
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <3E2C003B.5083.16AA237@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On 20 Jan 2003 at 21:19, D. C. Sessions wrote:
From: "D. C. Sessions" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty
Date sent: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:19:45 -0700
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> On Monday 20 January 2003 14:57, email@example.com wrote:
> > On 20 Jan 2003 at 7:32, D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > From: "D. C. Sessions" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court
> > travesty Date sent: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:32:36 -0700
> > Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > > On Sunday 19 January 2003 16:19, email@example.com wrote:
> > > > One should not tempt fate...personally, as a former jury member and
> > > > juror foreperson, I hope that my time is not spent dealing with this
> > > > lamentable law the next time I am summoned because as the ultimate
> > > > decider of fact, there are far more important questions to decide
> > > > involving judgment of the lives of others. I find it difficult to hold
> > > > copyright infringment as a criminal offense greater than the strangulation
> > > > followed by being thrown down a flight of stairs of the last case I sat
> > > > in judgement with others. Copyright offenses are pale things that border
> > > > on insignificance.
> > >
> > > I'm not at all sure I agree.
> > >
> > > Too many people have died for freedom of speech and other
> > > "thought freedoms" to blithely toss them out as worth less than
> > > a single life.
> > Many millions have already died for freedom of speech and are willing to
> > die for it...but I don't know of anyone willing to die for
> > copyright....copyright is not a freedom but a restraint....
> Yeppers -- thus, the "New World Copyright Order" is a threat
> to thought freedom, of the same cloth (if not quite so brown)
> as totalitarianism and other oppressive orders.
Well I think having Ed209s from Robocop patrolling the neighborhoods, tapping
into local networks, analyzing traffic and going over to bust open the door
with a Gatling gun intoning "you are illegally downloading...and your processor
is unregistered. Stand aside while I blast it [whirrr...] The fine is $100,000
and the hazmat clean up for the depeated uranium shells is $200,000"
If parody is protected speech by the SCOTUS decisions. Political speech is the
most protected of all (Judge Bork) even over commercial speech. Speech can take
many forms that are not verbal to be effective (e.g., flag burning) and is
still protected. Then can the use of copyright material to parody the argument,
advocates, be fair use in a political discussion of copyright? Indeed, it may
be the most effective way to show the stupidity of lengthy terms, the trumping
of First Amendment rights by copyright. Assume, I had the resources to make Ed
209 do this or the stormtoopers from StarWars crash intot someone's home for
perceived copyright infringment or having a computer without the current DRM
upgrade...or just have Mickey Prancing down the SCOTUS steps shouting "F*CK the
> begin signature.exe
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?