| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> 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.
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 copyrighted music at a club? Further, if you are a
DJ and charge a fee for your services, then you're profiting from the
broadcasting of copyrighted intellectual property--again, I don't see the
problem.
> 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.
That's classic slippery slope (ie, falacious) reasoning. There is no
certainty that the DMCA (or any other so-called "trend to globalization")
will lead to such a monochrome dystopia as that predicted by Huxley (or
Orwell, while we're at it.)
> The DMCA is one more step closer to this inhuman Utopia.
Every time you start your car, or open a can of soda, or turn on your
lights, or read a book in standard English, or use plastic, or wear
clothing, or eat store-bought food, you are yourself taking a step closer to
this "inhuman Utopia," which, by the way, is an inflammatory propaganda
spin-word.
> 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.
Unless you've used imprecise wording, then you're condemning the DMCA, in
part, due to your speculative perception of things, and in any case the
statement is non-specific and inflammatory. The DMCA is or is not valid
regardless of which corporations support it, rather than because of their
support.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: DMCA
|
| (...) You're missing the point. If it was a copyright infringement to play music at a club, there would be no independent clubs in operation. The only legal clubs allowed would be properties of those same copyright holders that prohibit movies from (...) (23 years ago, 11-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: DMCA
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
