[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-discuss digest 2003] V #237
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-discuss digest 2003] V #237
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 19:26:43 -0700
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
On 9 Jul 2003 at 10:56, Rares Marian wrote:
From: "Rares Marian" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date sent: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:56:52 -0700
Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-discuss digest 2003] V #237
Send reply to: email@example.com
> >On 8 Jul 2003 at 11:29, John Zulauf wrote:
> >Date sent: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 11:29:16 -0600
> >From: "John Zulauf" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: email@example.com
> >Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
> >Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >I think it was Jessica Litman who wrote that the problem with copyright now is
> >that there is an industry of obsolete people who still have BMWs that they want
> > to keep and don't want to take up the task of throwing away all that they
> >learned in school and practice and starting from scratch.
> That is such a cop-out. Whether they want to or not isn't their choice.
As the original poster, (who was not .002), having no choice?...that's a cop
out. There is ALWAYS choice. Some people choose to give up their BMWs because
they derive less satisfaction from material ownership than they do satisfaction
from conviction (e.g., read the life of Clarence Darrow. He gave up a
successful railroad practice in his 40s). Other people want their BMWs and will
do anything to keep them. Of course, some of those BMW owners don't understand
what's going on and probably never will even if they did have the intellectual
capacity to do so (e.g., the RIAA lawyer at the DMCA hearing in UCLA in May who
parotted the slogans of police states throughout history to me "If you aren't
doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear from us"...J.Tyre was there and
can vouch that I did not call him a stupid F**KING moron ...OK I don't know if
he drives a BMW). It's always their choice.
Also, if they have nothing to contribute to the discussion but "I like it the
way it was so we have to keep it that way because that's what I know" is a sign
intellectual obsolescence - nothing to contribute to this debate. What debate?
> Litman's writing kind of the manner of a Lifestyles of the Copying and Suing.
> Nice overview but short on engaging readers to do something.
She's a scholar. But unlike many legal scholars, jurists, and lawyers she
recognized that the "intellectual property community" has created a very
elaborate artifice of constructs that is becoming obsolete. Those who have
profited well by those constructs have a vested interest in preserving them but
the new technologies are knocking those artifice back down to foundations,
where they are on equal or even less footing.
>Who gives a
> #@$##@$%#@! if they want to study, the judges should pass a yearly certification
> like other professionals have to.
You wouldn't want the ranks of the unemployed to be swelled by jurist now would
you? The problem is what do you certify a judge in? The law? That's not the
issue. They get a steady diet of regurgitated case law from the lawyers on each
side. Being a judge takes a lot more....just look at Lance Ito...or Stanley
Weiskopf Jr (Menendez trial AND Rodney King cases)
> Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
> Powered by Outblaze