| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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 being played outside licensed theaters. However, I'm
sure that the music industry understands the advertising that clubs
represent, and is wholly in support of such establishments.
> > 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.)
No cettainty that you seem to care to look into on your own behalf, which
seems to indicate that you, in fact, are in support of globalization, though
it most asuredly means the demise of individualism.
> > 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 only inflammatory propaganda because you seem to be comfortable with
current trends in globalization. I am well aware of where my money is going
and it disturbs me greatly that I really have no choice other than
incarceration or insanity.
> > 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!
Here, you are absolutely wrong.
The DMCA is only in existence because of those control hungry corporate
entities. Corporations seek to control our very intellect so that the
sharing of ideas and knowledge come at a cost prescribed by them. In turn,
they will share some of that profit to polical parties who support and
defend this Brave New World under the guise of national security.
However, all that I am writing here is, I suppose, falling on deaf ears, as
you seem to be in support of all the above. Therefore, I see no reason to
debate with you further, we are on opposite sides of the battle field.
Though purhaps, as far as you're concerned, this is not a battle. In that
case, fine, I'll do the fighting, and you can watch from the sidelines.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
