| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> To what, specifically, do you object? I'd be interested to explore this
> topic here on OT.Debate, but I'd like to know something more concrete about
> your views. In any case, "Know about it/Fear it" is little more than
> demagoguery.
First off, it infringes on free usage rights.
According to the normal copyright laws in the U.S., we have limited usage
rights to other people's intellectual properties that allow us to quote,
critique, distribute (with-out profit) them.
The DMCA prohibits these rights.
Potentially, I cannot record any of my music collection and distribute my
favorite songs to my friends, or play them at a public gathering (i.e. club
or party) without fear of lawsuit.
> > This is not a local U.S. law only. This is a step towards globalization and
> > puts humanity one step closer to slavery.
>
> Well, if you think that we're not already enslaved in countless ways,
> you're deliberately avoiding certain facts. In any case, why is
> globalization a problem, exactly? To me, a world-wide state, in which the
> texture and character of cultures can mix and learn from each other, is
> pretty close to a Utopian ideal. Or are you objecting to possibility that a
> single agenda will overtake (nearly) the entire human population?
I am well aware that there are some movements in support of a single agenda
to overtake the entire human population.
The point I am trying to make, however, is that the current trend to
globaliztion is infringing on the rights of individuals according to *my*
definition of rights.
The fewer choices we have in this world, the less diversity we allow, the
more likely-hood of the Brave New World as envisioned by Aldous Huxley.
The DMCA is one more step closer to this inhuman Utopia.
It is one more reason to consider taking up arms against the government (a
shame some nations no longer have that option, but at least they *feel* safe).
It is unfortuante that the major networks here in the U.S. are funded by
some of the same corporations that I am sure support the DMCA. Otherwise I
and many others may have become aware of it far sooner... rather than
waiting for people to start getting cinvicted for unwittingly breaking such
a law.
> > ...one step closer to the demise of indivualism.
>
> Demagoguery.
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: DMCA
|
| (...) So you're objection is that the DMCA prevents the theft of intellectual property? I don't see the problem. Copyright law for motion pictures, for instance, has long prohibited non-licensed public broadcast, so why should you be allowed to play (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: DMCA
|
| (...) Kurby, I hope you have your copy from Copyleft of DIVX :) I know I have mine. Support for organizations like EFF and 2600 is still needed (the 2600 case has so far cost somewhat in excess of 1 million USD) The bad thing is that it is very (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: DMCA
|
| (...) Copyright has never allowed you to copy your favorite songs onto a tape or CD to give to a friend. Fair use probably does allow making a custom mix for your own use (so long as you don't then sell or return the originals). Fair use probably (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: DMCA
|
| (...) To what, specifically, do you object? I'd be interested to explore this topic here on OT.Debate, but I'd like to know something more concrete about your views. In any case, "Know about it/Fear it" is little more than demagoguery. (...) Well, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
