Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats
From: Marty Fouts (usenet-user@usa.net)Date: 02/16/02
- Previous message: Malte Buck: "Re: books on Security"
- In reply to: srt@nospam.unt.edu: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Next in thread: srt@nospam.unt.edu: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Next in thread: Bernd Felsche: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Reply: srt@nospam.unt.edu: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Marty Fouts <usenet-user@usa.net> Date: 16 Feb 2002 08:55:44 -0800
srt@nospam.unt.edu writes:
> In comp.security.misc Marty Fouts <usenet-user@usa.net> wrote:
> > srt@nospam.unt.edu writes:
>
> >> The fact that it treats copyright as a sole property right of the
> >> "IP" owners, and not as a balance between the owners and the public,
> >> as established the constitution. They have effectively taken all of
> >> the public's rights away, including the rights of fair use, and
> >> handed them all to the media companies. That is an amazing
> >> perversion of the constitutional notion of copyrights.
>
> > Sorry, but I don't see that. Copyright is an 'exclusive' right of the
> > IP originator, under the US constitution and the DMCA doesn't change
> > that. Even under the DMCA copyright has a time limit (although one
> > that's far too long, IMO.)
>
> No, copyright is not an exclusive right like a property right.
You may wonder why I put the word exclusive in quotes. I put it in
quotes because it is the word used in the US constitution:
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;
(Article 1, clause 8)
> The rights of copyright holders are explicitly limited.
But not directly by the constitution itself, other than the time limit.
[snip]
You're going to have to find some other reason than exclusivity if you
want a basis for a constitutional challenge to copyright.
- Previous message: Malte Buck: "Re: books on Security"
- In reply to: srt@nospam.unt.edu: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Next in thread: srt@nospam.unt.edu: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Next in thread: Bernd Felsche: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Reply: srt@nospam.unt.edu: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|