MESSAGE
| DATE | 2001-12-26 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] DVD region codes Ti Powerbook - End of the Digial Revolution
|
>>>
>>> 1. You may make copies for your own use.
>>
>>In reality, only a *limited* number of copies.
That's not true. You can make unlimited personal copies. There is NO restriction on your personal use of your property.
You can make a zillion copies....have fun.
>>> 4. You may make copies of parts of the book, the album, and the movie, in
>>> order to discuss it, to make fun of it, and even incorporate the part in a
>>> new work.
>>
>>Within the bounds of "fair use."
Fair Use is an expression of the 4th and 1st amendments. These are part of the Billof Rights and are unboundable. I can use the whole work, if need be, to make my point, to educate, and discuss.
>>> We call these traditional rights "Fair Use". . .
>>
>>Jay may call the listed rights "Fair Use," but the *law* doesn't use the
>>term in that fashion.
Your again wrong. Fair Use is a term coined 'legally' in 17th Century England.
The statute is meaningless in defining or curbing fair use. The statute didn't create,
the 'fair use' doctrin, it doesn't define the 'fair use' doctrin' and is almost meaningless
EXCEPT, that copyright laws which ignor fair use are unconstitutional under the 1st and
4th amendments of the Bill of Rights.
>>Only 4) is Fair Use, as described in existing
>>copyright law (Title 17, Sec. 107 of the US Code), WHICH WAS NOT
>>COMPLETELY OVERTURNED AND RE-WRITTEN BY THE DMCA. If the DMCA did all the
>>things listed here, it would mean that nearly every single line of
>>copyright law in existence up to the passage of the DMCA would have been
>>voided.
>>
>>THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.
>>
Yes it did. The basis of fair use is security within ones property as guaranteed
in the 4th Amendment. The DMCA tries to a legal license wrapper between
you and your property. It prevents your access to your own property. That
ends Fair Use....period.
>> I could see nothing that clearly infringed on
>>established Fair Use, just extensions to copyright protections that
>>applied to digital media.
If it turns itself off, if it prevents me from using it, if it prevents my
examination and reverse engineering of my property, then it ends Fair Use.
And here is the results. The digital divid grows as access and reuse
of culture ends exploration and discovery amoung the poor.
Innovation dies as companies monoploies market position and
prevent compitition in media delivery technology.
Production of new material is inhibited as the Monopoly position of
corperate copyright holders gum up the ability to bring new published
works to market. Nothing better than reselling the catelogue.
Western Civilization is shacked over the coming decades under the
weight of loss of privacy, new speak, and censorship.
We all become share croppers of our own cultural heritage, as generations
pass never knowing that the freedom of sharing music and text ideas freely
without prior restraint. Eventually we loose previous generations of knowlesge
and creative works as we can no longer archive anything freely, and as libraries
are closed as free lenders of material to the public.
We stand today with Two clear paths infront of us. We've been warned previously by
Orwell and Huskly and the potential paths laid out for us today. We fully understand
the consequences eroding the publics free access to language, ideas, and invention.
But we are so busy worrying about our daily bread, that we are not taking the time
to reflect on the path we shall take. Shall we USE technology to free the human
spirit, to enable our fellow man, and to be an intrument of our greatest potential good,
Or shall we let technology to enslave us, to stop our speach, to spy on our person,
to degrade our spirit, prevent our exploration, to end our involvement with each other,
with humanity, and to end innovation. Shall we master technology, or be mastered by it.
This is the clear choice put out before us today.
Hollywood thinks it can bottle American Culture and sell it to the masses, and indeed
they can to a reasonable degree, do just this. However, Hollywood misses the point.
The reason why the world soaks up American culture is it represents something
very powerful to the billions of masses. Like the WTC, we see it every day and fail to
understand it's importance until it's too late and someone takes it from us by force.
They both repesent American Freedom, American Capitalism and American innovation.
If it's shackled, it's our death as a people.
>>> 2. You may not lend books, albums, and movies to your friends.
>>
>>This is ridiculous. While the DMCA is absolutely filled with odious
>>things, it has nothing to do with any of these activities.
>>
>>THIS IS A LIE.
Prevention of reading something is the PURPOSE of the DMCA.
>>
>>> 3. If you are a library, you may not buy one copy of a book, and lend it
>>> out for free to anyone with a library card; rather, you must pay the
>>> copyright holder every time the book is lent out.
>>
>>THIS IS A LIE.
This is EXACLY the Dmitry case and the abosulte stated goals of the
AAP, as written in plain English on their website.
>>
>>There are provisions within the DMCA for handling this very situation.
>>Nothing in the DMCA makes the present operation of libraries illegal.
>>Indeed, in one place it amends the law to allow *three* copies instead of
>>the *one* in the original law (Sec. 404(2)(A), amending Title 17, Section
>>108).
The DMCA prevents access to any media accept with the expressed premission
of the author or monopoly holder of that work.
PERIOD.
There is no further explanation. How the monopoly user abuses that power
is open ended and not inhibited by the DMCA in any fashion. They can allow
just White people to read it, sell it to you by the second, by the semester,
or not at all.
They can let you read it only if to buy product, make a pledge, agree to an
outragous pyramid scheme.
They can can do anything they damn well want.
>>
>>However, it does place additional restrictions on libraries in regard to
>>copying copyrighted works, restrictions that look pretty damned
>>reasonable to me, even if they are at variance with the way many
>>libraries have operated in the past.
Your completely ignorant of the facts. The librarians where biggest
group of people testifying against the DMCA in the LOC during it's
fair use exemption hears, and have been up in arms because the proponents
of the DMCA have said Librarians are like the Wacco Terrorist, because they
want to share literature with EVERYONE. That's almost a direct quote
as an argument of Judy Platt, AAP President, when explaining WHY publishers
NEED the DMCA to protect them from Libraries.
I can't go through the rest of this because your analysis of the issues is
unthoght out and without knolwedge of the actual facts.
But let me ask you this. Your a bright fellow, articulate and educated.
Under current conditions, the real cost of information
is pennys on the dollar of a few years ago.
Why is it then that the cost of Libraries and Public Education keeps
escalating. Why are they not leveraging digitalization of information
to end the disenfranchisement of the inner city, and to build productive
citizens?
Ruben I Safir
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
__________________________
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/hooked.mp3 - Spring is coming....
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
1-718-382-5752
____________________________
New Yorker Linux Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
