[free-sklyarov] brainstorming

Kastlyn kastlyn at unixtribe.net
Fri Aug 3 13:27:50 PDT 2001

The fundamental issue behind it is to exercise the fair-use of works NOT
in the public domain.  There are many works in the public domain.  Like
Shakespeare's works. (The interesting thing to point out here, though a
little off topic, is - where would we be if the many works that
Shakespeare heavily based much of his work on, had NOT been in the public
domain.  How many of the great works of the past would we not have today
if such draconian control of "Intellectual Property" had been in place
centuries ago?)  Though I'm not adverse to reading something that
is in the public domain, I think the focus should be on something that is
_not_ in the public domain.  "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a good
sugestion, and I'm not familiar with The Three Wolves and the Big Bad Pig,
but I'll check into it.  =}  Also, I think the Constitution is a good idea
to be read, maybe after the reading of a copyrighted work.  To bring home
the idea that we are perfectly within our rights in what we're doing.
Also, I caution against using the Bible.  Though many people hold it to be
sacred, many people do not, and I'd rather not alienate people by bringing
(any) religion into it.


On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Charles Eakins wrote:

> You know "It's a Wonderful Life" is also public domain.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: free-sklyarov-admin at zork.net
> [mailto:free-sklyarov-admin at zork.net]On Behalf Of Karsten M. Self
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 4:25 AM
> To: free-sklyarov at zork.net
> Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] brainstorming
> on Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 12:48:12AM -0700, Alex Fabrikant
> (alexf at hkn.eecs.berkeley.edu) wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Benjamin Krueger wrote:
> > > > The US Constitution is my own personal pick.  Or the Bible, which
> should
> > > > score some points with the political conservatives.
> > >
> > > The Bible is probably not a good choice. Most versions of the Bible are
> > > Copywritten, not public domain. For the most part, they may be altered
> or
> > > [...]
> >
> > Using the Bible will also alienate a substantial part of the group who are
> > not Christian as well as the respective part of the observers to whom we
> > are trying to deliver our message.
> Well, there's a conflict here:  do we want a public domain work or one
> that's copyrighted?  The Bible would fit either bill, it seems.
> As for the Christian/non-Christian groupings, don't be too quick to lump
> me into one category or the other.  While I'm not particularly
> religious, I would suggest that the impact this work has with both
> legislators and the public, particularly with a conservative
> administration in Washington, shouldn't be underestimated.   Personally,
> I'd prefer finding a good Old Testament passage (note OT shares much
> with Judaism and Islam), possibly Ecclesiases.
> Point being:  the Congressman or Senator who has to go home, face the
> folks, and answer why it is that they could spend five years in jail for
> reading the bible, is going to have some heat to deal with.  I'm not
> suggesting this text for any other reason.
> By all means pick additional texts, but this is a good one from a
> political perspective.
> > The US Constitution is a better pick, but still doesn't really satisfy
> > the original intent since we are trying to show off the fact that
> > we're making fair use of a COPYRIGHTED work by reading to others from
> > a copyrighted book we bought. Last time I checked, the US Constitution
> > wasn't too copyrighted (or so I should hope...).
> There are a few different angles.  One is to make clear to people that
> DMCA 1201 has absolutely nothing to do with copyright and absolutely
> everything to do with access control.  Bible, Constitution, or other,
> less loaded, traditional works, no longer copyrighted, would be a good
> demonstration of this.
> > Pick a recent children's book. Harry Potter or something similar which
> > a large fraction of the population knows about, and which is still
> > subject to copyright law. And then we can do the "50 people to commit
> > a felony at high noon at __(place)__" pitch, too. I think this can be
> > quite effective.
> This hits the other side, which is to show that the rights people don't
> even think about -- they just *are* -- with traditional media, no longer
> exist.  But the message isn't quite so clear -- you're now dealing with
> two concepts:  fair use, and access.  The first demonstration makes very
> clear that there's something very wrong with the DMCA, regardless of the
> wor.
> --
> Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>
> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
>  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?               There is no K5
> cabal
>   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/
> http://www.kuro5hin.org
>    Free Dmitry!! Boycott Adobe!! Repeal the DMCA!!
> http://www.freesklyarov.org
> Geek for Hire
> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov

More information about the Free-sklyarov mailing list