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

[alfee cube]

--- Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, alfee cube wrote:
> > you cannot get very far with this logic (every
> person is "perfectly
> > happy" to fine and punish people who speak what
> they to not like. in
> > your case people who yell lookout behind another
> individual.
> 
> It isn't the slippery slope you paint.

yes it is a very slippery slope that started long
before i was born. i have been trying to understand
first amendment law for years. not only has it been a
slippery slope but the tangled mess of decisions at
the bottom of the slope is not understandable anymore,
if it ever was!! 

> 
> There are complex legal "tests", wherein certain
> criteria must be met for
> speech to be restricted.  Our law says that such
> restrictions must be
> "narrowly tailored".
> 

i am very familiar with the oscillating standards
applied over the years, including the "narrow
tailoring " aimed at a legitimate government purpose
you refer to. however, this just begs the question
whether it is ever legitimate for a government to
restrict speech.

> Broad restrictions are bad, narrow restrictions can
> be good.
> 
> Where do you draw the line between expression and
> action?  I've already

yes - this division is tough, but not intractable:

we can begin by placing verbal and written speech in
one set and call that the unrestricted speech set.
place whatever you want in the other set and call it
whatever you want and restrict it in any manner you
choose.



> mentioned frightening people off of subway
> platforms.  What about
> threatening a person's safety or property?  Dance is
> protected



> "speech-like" expression.  What about covering my
> body with mirrors and
> dancing beside a freeway, thus blinding motorists?

i do not understand what the speech is, here? dancing
with mirrors is communicating what? for example when
cohen walked into a california court with a jacket
that said fuck the draft i can understand the content
or when a defendant in a criminal trial gives the
judge the middle finger or when a defendant refuses to
take of a hat or kneel or bow etc.

what is the speech with the mirrors - im not getting
it?

(by the way i have driven behind those folks with the
reflective stuff on their flat windows and been
blinded... are they making speech - i have at times
thought they were saying fuck you alfee:)

>

 
> How about if I sell a hair dryer and claim "New! 
> Safe in the tub!"?  Is
> it really the responsibility of every individual to
> assess these things
> for themselves?

it seems to me we have to distinguish between
government restricting speech and any particular set
of individuals agreeing to limit their speech for
whatever reason.

i am not asserting that individuals cannot restrict
their own speech (and i think most of us do for one
reason or another) only that government's cannot
restrict our speech.

nothing im asserting prevents an individual from
requiring a written warranty that a hair dryer (or any
other product) can be used in a tub! i don't see how
unrestricted speech would impede these individuals
from get or giving such a warranty?

> 
> If we are restricted to our personal knowledge and
> experience and cannot
> trust the world around us (and believe me, when the
> profit-mongers are
> unrestricted, they will flood us with so much
> disinformation, you won't
> know whom or what to trust), then we cannot grow
> beyond an individual's
> experience.  There is nothing to pass on to the next
> generation because
> nearly all of what we share is bullshit.
> 
> There are narrowly tailored restrictions that
> prevent total disruption of
> civilization by a few.
> 
> > why do you think libel is a legitimate reason to
> restrict speech? it
> > seems pretty silly to me - if someone libels me i
> can speak out in my
> > defense - why do i have to limit your speech?
> 
> Because I am a powerful publisher or a cartel of
> powerful publishers and
> if I can say whatever I like in my papers, I can
> spread lie and rumor and
> innuendo without threat of recourse.  And you, with
> your meager resources
> and pitifully small voice have no effective
> recourse.

is this really true? if adobe does something i do not
like i craft a clever logo, put up a web site, start
speaking out and im a publisher -- for $60/mo or free
if i use one of the free sites.

corporation early on tried to respond by suing to
suppress speech using libel laws (and they will
continue). these attempts to restrict speech occur
precisely because the individual now has the power to
be heard!!!!

> 
> There is also our responsibility to the future.  Our
> documents of today
> must reflect the best truth we know so as not to
> mislead and misdirect
> those who come later and who need to learn from our
> words and deeds.
> 
> > leaving aside whether commercial speech is in fact
> speech at all - why
> > do i have to restrict a corporations speech? why
> can't i just test
> > their speech and if untrue speak that?
> 
> Because you do not have the voice that they have. 
> You cannot be heard.

is this true anymore - see above?

> 
> > what you assert as legitimate reasons i assert are
> illegitimate.
> 
> Your cure is worse than your disease.

for me there is no greater disease than one human
being punishing another for verbal or written speech!!

> 
> Now, I believe that the DMCA won't stand up to the
> legal tests of narrow
> tailoring that any speech restriction must endure. 
> I believe that if the
> judicial system fails us in this, then we are
> obligated as individuals to
> rise up and replace our government with one that
> better serves the
> interests of the public.

they have already responded - they have told us that
code is speech but because of the potential harm this
speech can causes we are going to restrict this
speech. you have already given them the rationale (see
your "lookout" example.)


> 
> I think there are only a handful of "root causes"
> that can be eliminated
> to achieve a more just and human-oriented society. 
> I think we must
> reverse our holding that corporations receive the
> rights and protections
> of indivduals under the law.  I think we must
> severely scale back (if not
> completely eliminate) our copyright and patent laws.
>  And I think we must
> provide for the public funding of election campaigns
> (with comensurate
> criminal penalties and civil responsibility for
> those who would ignore
> election rules).
> 
> I think that the legislation and treaties of the
> past ten years have done
> more to harm freedom of indivduals and the
> sovereignty of nations than all
> the legislation of the previous 200.

yes :(
 
> J.
> -- 
>    -----------------
>      Jeme A Brelin
>     jeme at brelin.net
>    -----------------
>  [cc] counter-copyright
>  http://www.openlaw.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov

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