[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Latest RIAA Tactic- Impersonating a Police Officer

Richard wrote this in reply to my email, so I'm going to assume it was
intended as a reply even though it was top-posted with no contextual

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Richard Hartman wrote:
> Copyright infringement and the DMCA are two separate things.

So?  My point still stands.

> The DMCA enforces the removal by technological means of use rights that
> we nonetheless retain under actual copyright law.  This bypasses the
> entire legal system and puts the force of law behind the whims of the
> media interest groups.  This is arguably unconstitutional in the way
> that "due process" is negated, and should be opposed by any and every
> means available.


> Copyright is a long-standing

This doesn't mean I can't disagree with it and work to change it...
including civil disobedience of the law.

> and useful practice.

This is arguable.  I, personally, disagree... at least with the way the
law is written and has been for the past hundred years or so.

> True, recent legislation has (over)extended copyright to the point of
> idiocy, but the concept of copyright itself is nonetheless worth
> supporting.

Again, that's an opinion I don't share.

> I might support _limited_ "civil disobedience" regarding copyright
> infringement if you put some sort of boundary on it, such as respecting
> a shorter term but anything over X years is considered "public domain"
> by your protest group, however the attituted conveyed by your question
> "Why shouldn't anybody condone copyright infringement?" seems to go
> beyond that.

A more appropriate question would have been "Why should nobody condone
copyright infringement?"  That question is a more direct response to
Michael's comment and closer to the spirit of my intent.

I will go on to say, for clarification, that I believe the copyright of
works of fine art is inappropriate and also inconsistent with the intent
and wording of the copyright clause.  It is stifling to culture and a
hinderance to human development.

Furthermore, I believe that the current system of state protection of
exclusive publication rights has created a publishing oligopoly that is
at least as much a barrier to the production of new work as a
copyright-free system would be.  The purported public benefit of copyright
simply does not exist.

     Jeme A Brelin
 [cc] counter-copyright