More Powerful Than The Government?

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 17:39
You are missing the point of the law. The content belongs to that artist, under the copywright statutes, regardless of how it's modified.

Re-write the fucking law so that it is clear.

[TIDE-HSV]

I didn't want to dip this deep, but, Jibbler seemed to imply that he could play a copywrighted song backwards and that would be beyond the reach of the law. Plagiarism is a form of copywright violation. I just wanted to point out that modification of protected material doesn't place the act beyond the law as a violation. This is a common misconception.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@20 April 2003 - 19:07


I SECOND THE MOTION, RESEARCH OR BEAT IT!

Sorry if I'm coming off a little harsh, but everyone seems to pass on what they think they know and what they can prove thru research with documented sources.

Read my post right above you.
Go to that link.

That isn't just something I THOUGHT I knew.
That is the law.
The definition of plagarism has been expanded to cover all sorts of applications that your moldy Websters doesn't recognize.
You keep saying you don't think that Websters is the definitive source for information while continuing to use it as yours.

Try Google.

[TIDE-HSV]

The RIAA and the MPAA both seem to feel that the law is abundantly clear. And they have the police on their side. The question is whether or not the courts, in the final analysis, will be on their side. Of course, you have your Websters.

[clocker]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 19:15
The RIAA and the MPAA both seem to feel that the law is abundantly clear. And they have the police on their side. The question is whether or not the courts, in the final analysis, will be on their side. Of course, you have your Websters.

Yes, Jibbler and his cellmates will have all sorts of time to peruse Websters whilst preparing their appeals.

I look forward to seeing it on Court TV.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by clocker@20 April 2003 - 20:13
Read my post right above you.
Go to that link.

That isn't just something I THOUGHT I knew.
That is the law.
The definition of plagarism has been expanded to cover all sorts of applications that your moldy Websters doesn't recognize.
You keep saying you don't think that Websters is the definitive source for information while continuing to use it as yours.

Try Google.

I tried your link, and it was dead, or at least not responding. I used Websters in this example, because they actually "quote their sources", which means they give credit and specifically identify the written sources they used for documentation. This information is also available in print form, which is widely available at any public library.

Google, is a search engine, it is not an authoritive source. In fact, very little information on the internet is considered credible in the grand scheme of things. Anyone can type some HTML, but that does not make it fact.

Did any of you learn to write a research paper in school?

[TIDE-HSV]

I feel their pain. However, the DMCA of 1998 was drafter specifically to make our favorite hobby illegal, and, on the face of it, it does. There are tens of thousands of lawyers nationwide waiting to see the collision between that Act and the First Amendment in the Supreme Court. Seeing someone pound on a Webster's volume here is a bit comical, when one considers the legal resources that are being brought to bear on both sides of the issue. We'll await the outcome, whether we want or not. However, I make the point again that, while the courts grind away, technology is hard at work robbing the courts of their relevance. So it's illegal? Good, I'll try a different way.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@20 April 2003 - 20:15
The RIAA and the MPAA both seem to feel that the law is abundantly clear.  And they have the police on their side.  The question is whether or not the courts, in the final analysis, will be on their side.  Of course, you have your Websters.

The police are not the authority, the courts are, as you have stated. Clearly the RIAA/MPAA believe the law is very clear. They also stand to lose millions if they are wrong.

Laugh all you want at "websters", all that I'm asking is that you provide a clear and definitive policy/law/whatever, in regards to movies and music, live concerts, and the limits of intellectual property.

I'm glad someone realizes the humor in all this. Sure, this thread is interesting, but I was only using websters because they provide a link with which to link to. I'm sure a research paper on all of this would make for a night of interesting reading for all us.

[TIDE-HSV]

Well, here's one URL for the act. I suggest you read it before any more Websters. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...2281enr.txt.pdf

[clocker]

I'm sorry that my link is nonresponsive.
Here is the addy....www.law.cornel.edu/topics/copyright.html

For JmiF...www.law.cornel.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

You are obviously NOT the only person here to have ever written a research paper, although I fail to see the relevance.