[free-sklyarov] [DMCA_discuss] CNET - Security workers: Copyright law stifles

[alfee cube]

yes - but when we succeed in classifying code as 100%
speech how do we reason with those (such as the 2600
trial judge and others) who believe you can constrain
speech based on the likely outcome(s) that speech may
produce? (ie the famous but asinine statement that you
cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.)

it seems to me you must go further than classifying
code as 100% speech and assert that speech can never
be constrained because speech in and of itself does
not produce outcomes!

however, our society currently seems willing to
constrain one persons speech rather than assign
another person the responsibility to evaluate that
speech and act or not act as the evaluator person sees
fit.

stated differently society is currently willing to say
to dima:

"you dima, by speaking, have caused another person to 
 infringe a copyright. (they throw in for profit so it
has a capitalist flavor, i guess?) therefore, we are
going to punish you because your speech is the cause
of that person's infringement"!!

to make it even more absurd, the same society
asserting  speech causes outcomes seeks to
simultaneously assert individuals are responsible for
their own behavior! (im sure they meant to add, except
when another person's speech is responsible for that
behavior?)

... and we laugh when someone asserts "the devil made
me do it"!

just a thought:)





> The problem with both of these laws is the same.
> They wish to define software 
> as a device, either partially or totally.What it
> seems to me that we want 
> is to define software as 100% expression and thus
> protected speech .
> 
> On the one hand we have a powerful group of media
> companies, on the other 
> the US department of Justice. Both seem to want to
> define software in whatever 
> way is most advantageous for them to accomplish
> their goals. What is their 
> goal? There's is goal of all large, conservative,
> hierarchical organizations. 
> control. Absolute control.
> 
> The european parliment, which from what I
> understand, is a completely appointed 
> body and in them the DOJ has found a willing ear to
> their view of the world. 
> For their purposes the DOJ  wants software defined
> to be a device..." a 
> device, including a computer program, "...  There in
> fact is the rub. If 
> software is a device, not expression, the DOJ can
> control it just like lockpicks,
>  guns and drugs. No problem, the DOJ makes a
> business of controlling devices.
> 
> What the DMCA proponents do not mention, and what
> the DOJ is terrified of 
> in the US is the interpretation of software as 100%
> expression. If it were 
> then maybe just maybe someone might make the
> connection between software 
> and speech, and then they would be caught, undone by
> that increasingly, 
> it seems, anachronistic idea of Freedom of  Speech.
> 
> I give them full credit. These people are cunning,
> manipulative and methodical. 
> They whisper in the ears of those in power whatever
> mantra they think will 
> curry them the most favour, or if that fails simply
> drive a truckload of 
> money up to the front door and ring the bell. They
> know that if they cannot 
> get a law passed in one country that they can find
> another country to pass 
> the law in. A country that perhaps is not so strict
> about such arcane concepts 
> as protect speech and other fundamental rights.
> 
> Think about it. The US Department of Justice, who
> cannot get a law passed 
> in the US for fear of constitutional barriers simply
> finds a foreign body 
> who is amenable to passing their legislation for
> them in the full knowledge 
> that the law will in fact be directly applicable to
> the american population. 
> A population who cannot even depend on their own
> freedoms to protect them 
> due to international treaty. I am curious how long
> has the US Department 
> of Justice had the power to not only enforce laws,
> but make them? I thought 
> that was the job of congress and elected officials?
> I think they have a 
> name for a country where the police make laws, I
> believe it is called a 
> police state.
> 
> Have a nice day. :)
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com