Judge: File-swapping tools are legal

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Citizen Bob, Nov 2, 2006.

  1. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    Legitimacy is based on the consent of the governed. Enforceability is
    based on the end of a gun barrel.

    If statutory law were always legitimate, blacks would still be sitting
    in the back of buses.


    --

    "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
    make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
    pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
    outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
    the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
    justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
    --Clarence Darrow
     
    Citizen Bob, Nov 4, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    Prohibition was not a legitimate law, precisely for the reason you
    give.

    The legitimacy of law is based on the consent of the governed. And
    that does nor mean a majority either. A single individual can decide
    not to obey a law and all it takes is 1 juror to exhonerate him and
    create a precedent for common law.
    Congress did something about the attempt on the part of the
    entertainment industry to make copying TV shows with a VCR illegal.


    --

    "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
    make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
    pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
    outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
    the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
    justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
    --Clarence Darrow
     
    Citizen Bob, Nov 4, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Citizen Bob

    Citizen Bob Guest

    Fair use includes sharing as long as it is not for monetary gain.

    Don't tell me that you haven't watched a tape you made of a TV show
    with your wife. That's sharing.

    The entertainment industry is behaving in its usual greedy manner,
    like before, and like before it's going to get its wings clipped.


    --

    "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
    make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
    pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
    outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
    the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
    justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
    --Clarence Darrow
     
    Citizen Bob, Nov 4, 2006
    #23
  4. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    That's right. It was the law until it the Constitution was amended again to
    change it.

     
    PTravel, Nov 4, 2006
    #24
  5. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    That doesn't make any sense. In the case of copyright, statutory law
    preempts common law, i.e. there is no longer common law of copyright. That
    doesn't make it illegitimate.
    Nonsense. The purpose of law is to ensure predictability in social and
    commercial interactions, not to impose the will of a dictator on others.
    So-called jury nullification is not legal and, in any event, a judge can
    always enter judgment non obstante verdicto ("not withstanding the
    verdict").

    And that is not true.
    And that is also wrong.
     
    PTravel, Nov 4, 2006
    #25
  6. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    I don't know where you're getting all this stuff from, but it's not correct.
    Copying TV shows with VCRs was determined to fair use, and therefore legal,
    in the so-called "Betamax Case," Sony v. Universal. It was the Supreme
    Court that determined that Fair Use applied, not Congress.
     
    PTravel, Nov 4, 2006
    #26
  7. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    And that's completely wrong.
    The Copyright Act protects a number of interests in the form of reserved
    rights. The ones relevant to this discussion are the right to make copies,
    the right to prepare derivative works, the right to distribute, and the
    right to publicly perform. There is no such thing as "the right to share."

    Viewing a tape with my wife implicates the right to make copies and the
    right to publicly perform. Under Sony v. Universal, making a copy in this
    context is Fair Use. A viewing by immediate family and friends is, by
    definition in the statute, not a "public performance," so that the
    performance right is not implicated.
     
    PTravel, Nov 4, 2006
    #27
  8. Citizen Bob

    jayembee Guest

    Yes, they do. Prohibition *was* binding as long as it was the law.
    And it was binding law until Congress amended the Constitution to
    repeal it.

    That's PTravel's point. Laws are binding, period. To make them no
    longer binding, they have to be rescinded as law.

    Whether the copyright laws can (and should) be repealed is another
    issue. As long as they *are* the law, they are binding.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Nov 4, 2006
    #28
  9. Citizen Bob

    jayembee Guest

    Try telling that to a college professor who wants to photocopy
    journal articles for his class.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Nov 4, 2006
    #29
  10. Citizen Bob

    Rick Merrill Guest

    What? the Professor teaches for free?
     
    Rick Merrill, Nov 4, 2006
    #30
  11. Citizen Bob

    jayembee Guest

    No, but he's not getting any monetary gain from trying to make
    photocopies of articles, as opposed to his requiring the students
    to read the articles in question in the library.

    Unlike, say, assigning the class a book that he himself wrote.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Nov 4, 2006
    #31
  12. Citizen Bob

    JoeBloe Guest


    You're an idiot.
     
    JoeBloe, Nov 5, 2006
    #32
  13. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Sat, 4 Nov 2006, PTravel wrote :
    It was legitimate, but *unenforceable*.
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 5, 2006
    #33
  14. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Citizen Bob wrote :
    So does statutory law.
    Unless there's a retrial.
    *Legal* immunity perhaps, but not immunity from public reaction.
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 5, 2006
    #34
  15. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Sat, 4 Nov 2006, PTravel wrote :
    Rubbish!

    The whole point of having juries is to avoid arbitrary decisions by
    those in power. If cases under a certain law keep getting nullified, it
    sends a message that the law in question is unpopular/unenforceable.
    Since when? Why even bother having juries if that was the case?
    It prevents conviction, and forces authorities into deciding whether a
    retrial is worth the effort.
    Only in theory, not in practice, alas.
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 5, 2006
    #35
  16. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Citizen Bob wrote :
    Presumably, either video manufacturers had deeper pockets than the
    entertainment industry, or Congress realised it'd be insane to pass a
    law so utterly impossible to enforce.
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 5, 2006
    #36
  17. Citizen Bob

    Paul Hyett Guest

    In rec.video.dvd.tech on Sat, 4 Nov 2006, jayembee wrote :
    Only for drones who blindly obey any law, however unjust, merely because
    it exists. Dictators love people like that.
     
    Paul Hyett, Nov 5, 2006
    #37
  18. That was back when Sony was a video manufacturer
    and *NOT* also in the "entertainment industry". It would
    likely not go the same if it were to happen today.
     
    Richard Crowley, Nov 5, 2006
    #38
  19. Citizen Bob

    pomerado Guest

    "nonprofit educational purposes" is specifically noted in the fair use
    description portion of the current copyright law.

    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

    In my own experience, professors routinely hand out copies of journal
    articles.
     
    pomerado, Nov 5, 2006
    #39
  20. Citizen Bob

    PTravel Guest

    What do you think is rubbish? My statement of the purpose of law, which is
    Intro to Law 101 stuff, or that jury nullification is not legal.
    Jury nullification is not legal, and any lawyer who tries to argue it will
    find himself sanctioned pretty quickly. The whole point of having juries is
    to have the determination whether certain conduct occured determined by
    members of the community in which it was alleged to occur. Juries make
    factual determinations, and never legal ones.

    Since always. Juries do not have the absolute word, nor should they given
    the number of people who, evidently, believe that they are empowered to
    override the elected legislature.
    As I said, it is illegal to engage in jury nullication.
     
    PTravel, Nov 5, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.