No subject

Check out this bogus language kungfo:

"Fair use is an affirmative defense. As such, it is a privilege, not a right."

For example, as noted by another commentator, "a fair use
defense might allow a user to quote a passage from a book but it does not follow that the user is
allowed to break into a bookstore and steal a book" to do so.12 Such an interpretation would run
counter to the intent and purpose underlying various criminal and civil trespass laws, anti-hacking
laws, and privacy laws.





On 04-Aug-2001, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> On Saturday 04 August 2001 17:40, Jon O . wrote:
> > On 04-Aug-2001, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 01 August 2001 14:23, douglay at relicorp.com wrote:
> > > > Anyone interested a quick puke should click here:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.inside.com/product/product.asp?entity=&pf_ID=E8EECFA3-CBD1-
> > > > 447E-952C-CC16283D266C
> > > >
> > > > If it wasn't clear before, this article should make it crystal-
> > > > clear:
> > > >
> > > > The publishing industry, and its allies in the music and film
> > > > industries, cannot tolerate the free exchange of digital information
> > > > across the Internet, and are willing to go to any lengths whatsoever
> > > > to see that the free exchange of digital information is squelched.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone for a march on the AAP offices during Usenix?  These people
> > > > have basically declared war on programmers.
> > > >
> > > > -Doug
> > >
> > > Not just programmers but on the Republic itself. The more I read what the
> > > founding fathers *meant with copyright and about their concerns about
> > > monopolies granted by the state, I'm moving to the position that people
> > > such as Parloff are traitors to the Republic.
> > >
> > > And I'm not just throwing words. I *mean it.
> > >
> > > The free flow of ideas is essential to maintaining a democracy. Ours is
> > > in enough trouble with a public that is becoming increasingly less
> > > educated and informed. But to directly assault the limitations the
> > > founders meant on monopolies on information is to betray what this nation
> > > allegeds to be.
> > >
> > > "Intellectual property" is, I now think, treason.
> >
> > Yes, I think you are right for the most part. There is a certain amount of
> > need for it as I'm sure you have read to induce the continued production
> > of it. However, at this point in time, everything we do is usually created
> > under the employ of a company and therefore becomes their property.
> >
> > If you end up writing anything I'd be happy to publish it on
> > www.anti-dmca.org and make cure people read it.
> >
> > Once you start seeing the overall plan with Windows XP and ebooks
> > and monitoring it starts freaking you out...
> 
> It's a blatant attempt by corporations to return us to fuedalism. And, in 
> fact, what I'm reading about the history of copyright is that it was a major 
> tool by monarchs to CENSOR.
> 
> Our Constitution says a "limited time" for a reason. The free flow of 
> information is essential to a democracy. But democracy isn't what 
> corporations want. Not anymore.
> 
> Jefferson himself rejected the concept of "property" in regards to ideas. 
> "Intellectual property" is wholly un-American and detrimental to the Republic.
> 
> Mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov