Printable View
The barriers to free sharing are practical, practical, but - in the end - insuperable. Not legal at all. Continue to tilt at windmills, if you will (and I can tell you will), but filesharing, as it is practiced, is clearly in violation of our present statutes (which I hope will be changed). So, you've resorted to Webster. Well, I will have been practicing law forty years next month, but I guess your Webster's still got sixty years on me. :lol:
Never confuse the law with common sense, or natural justice.
Never take the normal meaning of a word (or phrase) to mean the same in legal terms.
The law stands alone and is dependant on the debate which made it. Not just the words as written down.
In the UK we call the written record of the debate the Hansard Notes (or something similar, I just can't remember).
The point is that the law is not just the words. It is the intention of the legislators as they debated the point.
The last person who made a reasonable attempt at "tilting at windmills" was Don Quixote.
So much so that it has become an accepted phrase for, what we call, pissing in the wind.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to use Websters as the authoritive source for making my case. However, the idea behind intellectual property and copyrights was put on the books years ago, long before anyone imagined internet or digital technology. The laws antiquated, and need to be rewritten. Trying to mold the ideas from 40 years ago to the technology of today is absurd. :huh: :huh:
The DMCA was passed in 1998 and it's the law of the land, like it or not. (I, for one, think it's hideous). I do agree that the application of the original ideas of protection of intellectual property to the cyber world is ridiculous. However, to return to my original point, it will collapse of its own logistical weight - not from legal attacks, IMO. If they stop Kazaa, then there will be a successor - and they know it. Were I on their side of the issue, I could think of many other approaches I would take in preference to their "hard-line" tack. However, they've taken the approach they've taken, and we will have to take them seriously and evade them as best we can. It will be an interesting tussle. :angry:
Yes, well, the DMCA is questionable at best. I continue to do research into this, but I don't see this going anywhere. There is such a fine line in all of this. If I go to a live concert, I have paid for admission, so why can't I bring in a video camera and record the concert? Assuming of course, that I'm only going to use it for personal use, how does this violate any laws?
In 9 days i'm going to see Pearl Jam live in concert. I believe in play for pay and I still support the bands. This loose interpretation of the law is bullshit. Will they make me sign a paper at the door that I will not distribute or copy the concert in any way? How about the next time that you go to a movie? Are you going to sign the same paper there?
You cannot licence a performance. Common sense tells us this. :blink:
I think I'm going to copyright all of my posts, so that no one here can "quote" me without my expressed written permission. :lol: :lol: :lol:
I presume that this is also true of such antiquated ideas as, say, the Ten Commandments and, oh, the U.S. Constitution?Quote:
Originally posted by Jibbler@20 April 2003 - 18:26
Trying to mold the ideas from 40 years ago to the technology of today is absurd. :huh: :huh:
I presume that this is also true of such antiquated ideas as, say, the Ten Commandments and, oh, the U.S. Constitution? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+20 April 2003 - 20:23--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 20 April 2003 - 20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jibbler@20 April 2003 - 18:26
Trying to mold the ideas from 40 years ago to the technology of today is absurd. :huh: :huh:
Oh the foolish, foolish man. Ten Commandments? Funny that you choose that one, as today is Easter Sunday. These aren't laws, but works of fiction which have been interpreted differently over the past 2000 years.
I do believe the Constitution is a set of Federal Laws, essentially a list of rights, guaranteed for every American, regardless of their local laws. I'm sure the founding fathers had a civil government in mind when they created it, not movie/music piracy. The US Constitution is a good example. However I will point out, that there are Amendments to the Constitution, so this would be classified as a "work in progress", don't you think? :huh: :huh:
Oh the foolish, foolish man. Ten Commandments? Funny that you choose that one, as today is Easter Sunday. These aren't laws, but works of fiction which have been interpreted differently over the past 2000 years.Quote:
Originally posted by Jibbler+20 April 2003 - 19:59--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 20 April 2003 - 19:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by -clocker@20 April 2003 - 20:23
<!--QuoteBegin--Jibbler
Quote:
@20 April 2003 - 18:26
Trying to mold the ideas from 40 years ago to the technology of today is absurd. :huh: :huh:
I presume that this is also true of such antiquated ideas as, say, the Ten Commandments and, oh, the U.S. Constitution?
The US Constitution is a good example. However I will point out, that there are Amendments to the Constitution, so this would be classified as a "work in progress", don't you think? :huh: :huh: [/b][/quote]
I believe that if you take A VERY CAREFUL look at your original post even you will agree that you said "the ideas of forty years ago".
My use of the Ten Commandments was not intended to be funny or unintentional. I think it is an excellent example of how ideas can maintain relevance in our technological age.
Simply being old ( be it an idea, a law or a man ) is hardly reason to consider something obsolete. Laws, in particular, evolve constantly to maintain relevance with current conditions. We are certainly not the first generation to feel the discomfort of evolving technology, I'm sure that the invention of the wheel screwed up somebody's way of life too.
Interesting approach, I wonder how people in the 50s dealt with television, etc. Anyone care to spin me a time machine, so I can learn the ways of the free thinking world of yester-year? All kidding aside, I wonder if people worried about the negative aspects of technology in those days. Good point Clocker. B)Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@20 April 2003 - 21:14
Laws, in particular, evolve constantly to maintain relevance with current conditions. We are certainly not the first generation to feel the discomfort of evolving technology, I'm sure that the invention of the wheel screwed up somebody's way of life too.