correction: I should have said "Souter" where I said "Stevens". John Willkie -----Original Message----- >From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Jun 29, 2008 1:19 PM >To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies > >soapbox time ... > >I'd rather argue with Lawrence Lessig via email. (Which I've done once or >twice, but not in this century.) > >He's free to make his content available for free, but not to make the content >of others available for free. (The Napster context was when our discussions >occurred; the court in that matter travelled in my direction, and took apart >his.) > >We've gone down this route before, and I think it's best to not repeat oneself >excessively. One of those copyright cases I linked to yesterday was a Supreme >Court ruling holding that it wasn't unconstitutional by extending copyright >terms during the term. > >Oh, well. (Contrary to my position.) |We're basically on the same page here, >except that I think a 14 year copyright term (even with one renewal) is too >short. We both agree that the current terms are too long. For an individual, >life plus 70 years. Sounds more like a prison term for rape. > >"Original intent" is rather passe -- Justice Stevens actually used the >original intent doctrine in an attempt to all but explain away the CLEARLY >DEFINED individual right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment. It's >been there every time I read the thing, but justices and judges, going back as >far as U.S. v Miller (1929) that provided for the regulation of machine guns. > >Antonin Scalia got it right, and put 'original intent' into the dustbin of >history. > > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx> >>Sent: Jun 29, 2008 5:24 AM >>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies >> >>At 11:50 PM -0400 6/28/08, John Willkie wrote: >>>it that helps you feel better, okay. You're not providing me any >>>new information, and in the grand scheme of things, you are drawing >>>a distinction without a difference. >>> >>>However, YOUR RIGHTS and MINE are non-existent in this context, at >>>least as regards copyrights held by others. >>> >>>"Fair use" isn't a right; it's a legal defense to a claim of >>>copyright infringement. Copyrights are a right that comes DIRECTLY >>>from the constitution. >>> >> >>As long as we are trying to be fair here... >> >>The original intent of those who wrote the Constitution would tend to >>favor fair use over the rights of the creator of the intellectual >>property. The framers were concerned about the ability of content >>owners to use the power of government to protect their rights to the >>detriment of society.They believed, as I do today, that the rapid >>proliferation of new ideas and the ability for "the people" to use >>these ideas and build upon them trumps the rights of the creators to >>protect and benefit from them into perpetuity. Thus the Constitution >>was framed in a manner to limit the rights of the creators of >>intellectual property fo that give them exclusive r the benefit of >>the entire country. >> >>There is a simple bargain in this. The power of the government can be >>used to protect the LIMITED rights of the creators of intellectual >>property via the granting of copyrights and patents that give them >>exclusive control of the intellectual property for a LIMITED time, >>after which the ideas are to be pushed into the public domain. >>Patents were intended to speed up the proliferation of new ideas by >>using the force of government to enforce licenses for those patents. >> >>I think it would be more than fair to say that the framers would be >>very pissed off about what has happened to their original intent as >>it relates to patents and copyrights. >> >>There is a rich history behind fair use that predates our Constitution. >> >>I would recommend reading the book at this link by Lawrence Lessig - it's >>FREE! >> >>http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/ >> >>Regards >>Craig >> >> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: >> >>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at >>FreeLists.org >> >>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word >>unsubscribe in the subject line. >> > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: > >- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at >FreeLists.org > >- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word >unsubscribe in the subject line. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.