|FROM ||Jay Sulzberger
|SUBJECT ||Re: [fairuse] Re: [hangout] Re: Congression Lobbying
|From owner-hangout-desteny-at-mrbrklyn.com Wed Apr 24 15:15:43 2002
Received: from mail.rm-cpa.com (mail.rm-cpa.com [188.8.131.52])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id g3OJFgC20571
for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:15:42 -0400
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (dsl254-112-136.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net [184.108.40.206])
by mail.rm-cpa.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03596;
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:02:05 -0400
Received: (from mdom-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g3OJEZs20493
for hangout-desteny; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:14:35 -0400
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [220.127.116.11])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id g3OJEYC20480;
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:14:34 -0400
Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [18.104.22.168])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 5C50548920; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:11:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
by panix2.panix.com (8.11.3nb1/8.8.8/PanixN1.0) with ESMTP id g3OJB7i20155;
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:11:07 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: panix2.panix.com: jays owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:11:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Sulzberger
To: Ruben I Safir
Cc: fairuse-at-mrbrklyn.com, ,
Subject: Re: [fairuse] Re: [hangout] Re: Congression Lobbying
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: Jay Sulzberger
List: New Yorkers Linux Scene
Admin: To unsubscribe send unsubscribename-at-domian.com to hangout-request-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Ruben I Safir wrote:
> > Yes, Fair Use should not be defined by statute as an exception to
> > unlimited copyright.
> Right. Copyright needs to be defined as an exception to Fair Use.
> > Also there should be no statutory mandate, under the
> > copyright clause of the US constitution, that specifies media capbilities.
> We need laws which prohit forcing contractual agreements on people which
> are not signed negotiated agreements. It's not a consumer right.
> It's a HUMAN RIGHT.
I agree that that once you have the can of soup, book, CD, computer,
WaterDino, OSDoll, Theremin, Voyage to the Moon print, newspaper, shadow
on your floor, etc., in your house, no contract of adhesion can stop you
from doing what you want. This is completely different from the
governament mandating that my new nanodust standup comic last for more
than one month in normal use, and one hour in Slashdot mode. Any statute
on what media is allowed acts against us, and very quickly too. A statute
against certain unfair contracts of adhesion I am for, and I think this is
what you really want.
> > Such a law, even if designed to protect "consumer" rights, would allow the
> > government and the Englobulators to restrict our freedom to make, sell,
> I don't think your right, and you've never given such an example.
Example: Your reader for your index of writings on copyright has a bug:
After 111 uses its internal state becomes disarranged and it
self-destructs on the hard drives of those you've sold it to. The Federal
government with the Englobulators revokes your "federal media license", or
sues. Under any statutory mandate that directly limits what media are
allowed to be made, sold, traded, or given away, this will happen, and
Free Programmers and Free Artists will be the ones attacked and forced to
do things the way the Englobulators want, or not distribute our work.
> A law which prohibits the inhibition of free access to any media owned by
> an individual is exactly what is needed to assure political freedom.
No. Just make sure Congress and the courts do not allow insane invasive
contracts of adhesion at point of sale. Never directly regulate private
media. Bandwidth limited and monopoly media are different and usually
require regulation, but still, no regulation of private use is needed.
Once the book, signal, etc. lawfully gets in your house, it is indeed
yours. We agree on this rock bottom principle. And any government
restriction on what form I make available my art, denies me and my
users-collaboartors exactly this freedom of private use of our property.
Once again, unfair contracts of adhesion, which contracts seek to deny my
free private use of my property, can be thrown out, without mandating
anything about the media itself. Only contracts need be regulated by
statute, and only when some crazy court upholds some crazy and bad EULA.
> > use, and abuse whatever I, Andy Warhol, G. Melies, Theremin Stack Inc.,
> > BioFluidDynamicDevices, WaterGelDinos, OtakuSexDolls, the
> > EncephaThalamicShunt League, World Empathologies, etc. invent. Even if
> > the restrictions on media were completely "fair and non-discriminatory and
> > zero cost" the paperwork alone would act as an effective bar to market
> > entry and full free use by CITIZEN PRODUCERS OF THE COMING AGE OF VRIL.
> Not if we don't pass laws making it illegal to produce media which impairs
> the security of the citizen with regard to their property.
No. The Englobulators will then claim that all our stuff, why our very
tribal ways, "restrict the security of the citizen". They will say 'After
all, who knows what the GNU system really does, while our, that is,
Apple's, Sun's, IBM's, Microsoft's, and Sony's systems all have their
'certificates of compliance with the Fair Media Act of 2003'.".
> If we don't do that, then we're doomed. Free Software is doomed, Free
> education is doomed and the open political process is doomed.
Sir, I depend on the Constitution.
And my brothers and sisters armed. Armed with disk and cpu, with compiler
and kernel, with copper and aether.
New Yorker Linux Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....