Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 20 Jan 2003 at 21:19, D. C. Sessions wrote:

From:           	"D. C. Sessions" <dvd@lumbercartel.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty
Date sent:      	Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:19:45 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> On Monday 20 January 2003 14:57, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > On 20 Jan 2003 at 7:32, D. C. Sessions wrote:
> >
> > From:           	"D. C. Sessions" <dvd@lumbercartel.com>
> > To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court
> > travesty Date sent:      	Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:32:36 -0700
> > Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >
> > > On Sunday 19 January 2003 16:19, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > > One should not tempt fate...personally, as a former jury member and
> > > > juror foreperson, I hope that my time is not spent dealing with this
> > > > lamentable law the next time I am summoned  because as the ultimate
> > > > decider of fact, there are far more important questions to decide
> > > > involving judgment of the lives of others. I find it difficult to hold
> > > > copyright infringment as a criminal offense greater than the strangulation
> > > >  followed by being thrown down a flight of stairs of the last case I sat
> > > > in judgement with others. Copyright offenses are pale things that border
> > > > on insignificance.
> > >
> > > I'm not at all sure I agree.
> > >
> > > Too many people have died for freedom of speech and other
> > > "thought freedoms" to blithely toss them out as worth less than
> > > a single life.
> >
> > Many millions have already died for freedom of speech and are willing to
> > die for it...but I don't know of anyone willing to die for
> > copyright....copyright is not a freedom but a restraint....
> 
> Yeppers -- thus, the "New World Copyright Order" is a threat
> to thought freedom, of the same cloth (if not quite so brown)
> as totalitarianism and other oppressive orders.

Well I think having  Ed209s from Robocop patrolling the neighborhoods, tapping 
into local networks, analyzing traffic and going over to bust open the door 
with a Gatling gun intoning "you are illegally downloading...and your processor 
is unregistered. Stand aside while I blast it [whirrr...] The fine is $100,000 
and the hazmat clean up for the depeated uranium shells is $200,000"

If parody is protected speech by the SCOTUS decisions. Political speech is the 
most protected of all (Judge Bork) even over commercial speech. Speech can take 
many forms  that are not verbal to be effective (e.g., flag burning) and is 
still protected. Then can the use of copyright material to parody the argument, 
advocates, be fair use in a political discussion of copyright? Indeed, it may 
be the most effective way to show the stupidity of lengthy terms, the trumping 
of First Amendment rights by copyright. Assume, I had the resources to make Ed 
209 do this or the stormtoopers from StarWars crash intot someone's home for 
perceived copyright infringment or having a computer without the current DRM 
upgrade...or just have Mickey Prancing down the SCOTUS steps shouting "F*CK the 
public domain"

> 
> -- 
> begin signature.exe
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
>