Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 05/09/2008 12:06:07 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
I’ll be voting for Chuck Baldwin in Nov.
At this point so will I. Paul was one of the better GOP canidates running this year but MSM schmucks like Hannity weren’t gonna have it. Jimmy Duncan was asked by the CP to consider running on the ticket also. Chuck is fine by me though. Between McCain, Obama, and Hillary, Chuck is the only choice that is not forcing a person into voting the lesser of evils.
All but the tiny few who voted against this travesty! Like Dr. Paul. Who, by all rights, should be our next POTUS.
I have made those very objections... and I find this act AND the so-called USA-PATRIOT act abominations of the highest order. I am surprised that many more conservatives have yet to object to them... unless it is not the Constitution for the United States you wish to conserve...
ping
Not at all. Merely pointing out that the precedent has been set and trial-tested going back many years. Not knowing a crime is being committed on your property is no defense against seizure. Anybody who is counting on that in the face of this new law is in for a rude awakening.
I've got a better idea. How about FedGov returning to a copyright law that a reasonable person might recognise as a "limted time"?
The Constitution reads:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
The entire Beatles catalog would be in the public domain if we had the same copyright the Founders of this nation thought was reasonable (28 years). There is no legitimate reason to have what we effectively have now, which is eternal copyright.
Hundreds of thousands if not millions of works are out of print and thus largely out of the public's reach because copyright law has become nothing more than a Micky Mouse Protection racket for immortal corporations.
The current copyright law only makes sense if you are immortal.
Yup. And you can thank the war on drugs for establishing the precident.
THAT is why I oppose the drug war, because it is used as an excuse to shred the constitution. I don't give a damn about pot or anything else. No stupid law is keeping me from smoking dope. I keep myself from doing drugs because I have no desire of it.
All you folks that have supported the WoD will eventually have the legal precidents established there used against you and yours. It is just a matter of time.
Quite true.
Bump.
Yes, but do you understand that there are a lot of seemingly legal activities that are rendered illegal by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act?
Consider the example of music legally purchased by others on this thread who are will no longer be able to listen to the paid for songs due to Microsoft turning off the servers that verified that they paid for the song. They paid for the song, MS did not tell them they were only renting it temporarily, So a user may feel justified in copying that song to a non-protected format, ie. mp3. To do so is to defeat the DRM, an act explicitly declared illegal under the DMCA. Similarly, want to back up that legally purchased DVD before you hand it over to your eight year old? Or Copy the movie onto your laptop for later viewing? Same thing, copyright violation. Want to convert the songs on your legally purchased CD to mp3 for your mp3 player, but the CD has copy protection on it? Boom, DMCA violation.
Our party is as bought and paid for by the **AA in the area as the Dems. Our guys just came a lot cheaper.
Did you make them at the time the law was passed? Or did you suddenly realize that it was bad mojo when the libs started screaming about it in 2001?
I am surprised that many more conservatives have yet to object to them... unless it is not the Constitution for the United States you wish to conserve...
Yes, yes, anyone who doesn't agree with you on a civil rights issue is indeed an evil traitor to the republic. No hyperbole there. What specific provisions are unconstitutional?
I would never assume that it's OK to copy a DVD or CD. While it may seem reasonable to be able to make a "backup" copy, what's to stop someone from making 12 copies and selling them on eBay? I've seen plenty of fake ripoff DVD's for sale on eBay. I think that people acquire a sense of entitlement when it comes to copyrighted material. But songs and movies cost time and money to create. Where is it written that just because you pay $16 for a CD, you should be able to make another one just like it? Remember the old days, when you went to the theater and paid $20 for your family to see a movie one time? If you wanted to see it again, you had to pay another $20. We should just be happy that we can now purchase a disk and play it repeatedly for the whole clan at no additional expense.
I objected at the time of its passage, just as I did with the bill submitted by the Clowntoon after OKC. How convenient that they have this BS all written and ready to go, just waiting an incident of such magnitude as 9/11 and OKC to submit it for passage. At such times, even I have to question what foreknowledge the Feddies might have had... Then I smack myself for being a conspiracy theorist. Then something ELSE happens and I smack myself for smacking myself.
OBTW, I never used or even thought the phrase, evil traitor, so your strawman is still alive and kicking. What _I_ have to say is that you are not conserving the Constitution when you cheer for more and more legislation which puts more and more power in the hands of the Feddies THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR THEM TO HAVE by the Founders. Which YOU very much do. Whether it be the worst aspects of the so called war on terror (USA PATRIOT, etc), the war on some drugs, legislation of (false) morality, whatever, if it puts more power over the lives of others into the hands of FedGov, I have seen where you are ALL OVER it... so your posturing can be saved for another audience.
Now do you want to complicate matters more? What if I want to sell my legit purchased CD to someone else? How long before a mandatory fee must be paid the artist? Why? Do I pay Chrysler one when I sell a vehicle? No the RIAA is a special lobbying group asking for unreasonable privileges and protections surpassing common sense and origional inten to such laws.
Excellent. That puts you ahead of 99% of those who object to the Patriot Act.
OBTW, I never used or even thought the phrase, evil traitor, so your strawman is still alive and kicking. What _I_ have to say is that you are not conserving the Constitution when you cheer for more and more legislation which puts more and more power in the hands of the Feddies THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR THEM TO HAVE by the Founders. Which YOU very much do. Whether it be the worst aspects of the so called war on terror (USA PATRIOT, etc), the war on some drugs, legislation of (false) morality, whatever, if it puts more power over the lives of others into the hands of FedGov, I have seen where you are ALL OVER it... so your posturing can be saved for another audience.
Well now, if we're doing away with posturing, why don't you put away yours and answer my question: What specific Patriot Act provisions do you believe are unconstitutional? Can you cite them from the text of the law?
http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-5128652-1.html
You have the right to do so for non-commercial use under the Fair Use doctrine. Whats to stop you from making 16 copes? Well for one its been ruled that 10 copies is commercial use. Obviously selling any copy would be considered "Commercial"
Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:
This is hardly a definitive ruling on the issue. "Many lawyers" probably also think that there should be no intellectual property rights. The line is too blurry between personal use and commercial use. If I make a copy of a movie and give it to my brother, is that Fair Use? I would argue that it's not. Why? Because that copy represents lost revenue for the artist. If I had not given him the copy of the DVD, I might have ordered it from Amazon.com, and the artist would have received a small royalty from the sale.
But if you had sold him your origional DVD then what? That will be RIAA’s next attack on consumers. Their next claim allowed to become law of the land will be you aren’t buying the DVD but rather the right to watch it nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.