Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats
From: Gavin Kerr (gk@quantumlemming.net)Date: 02/16/02
- Previous message: srt@nospam.unt.edu: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- In reply to: Marty Fouts: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Next in thread: Ken Ashe: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Next in thread: Bernd Felsche: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Reply: Ken Ashe: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Reply: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Gavin Kerr" <gk@quantumlemming.net> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:44:53 GMT
In article <uzo2aa546.fsf@usa.net>, "Marty Fouts" <usenet-user@usa.net>
immanentized the Eschaton by saying:
> srt@nospam.unt.edu writes:
>
>> In comp.security.misc Marty Fouts <usenet-user@usa.net> wrote:
>> > srt@nospam.unt.edu writes:
> >> In fact, the very term "intellectual property" is at odds with the
> >> historical intent of copyright because it was very explicitly stated
> >> at the time of the constitution that copyright is *NOT* a property
> >> right....
>
> > Do you have a citation for that explicit statement? Anyway,
> > 'intellectual property' is just a label for that which has been
> > protected by copyright under English law since the early 1700s. (see
> > http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html for a brief timeline of
> > US copyright history.)
>
> Yes indeed. See either Lawrence Lessig's latest book, or the book on
> copyright by... I'm drawing a blank on the guy's name, but the title
> of the book has the word "copywrongs" in it (sorry, but I only
> remember the somewhat hokey pun in the title now!). Both have a great
> historical perspective of copyright and how it has been perverted in
> recent years. The "copywrongs" book has quotes from the original
> constitutional debates about copyrights (including from Thomas
> Jefferson and others) making it very clear that copyright is not a
> property right.
>OK. I'll add Lessig to my reading list. His books aren't at my local
>library, so I'd appreciate a full reference so I can ILL it.
>
>[snip!]
>
>> 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.)
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, both of you.
IANAA (I am not an American), but I've spent a fair while reading the
constitution et al purely because of this. It's actually a very
impressive document, and it's a shame to see it slaughtered the way it is
being these days. Oh well, that's what happens when you legalise bribery
for your legislators.
Copyright, according to the US constitution is a short-term monopoly
on the right to produce of copies. Hence the word.
It is in no way property. You do not own a right. You have a right. The
only thing that copyright was meant to do was to remove the right to copy
things from other people. YOU get nothing. *THEY* have their rights
abridged.
In just the same way, when copryight expires, YOU lose nothing, THEY
regain their right to make copies (So long as the mouse is still in
copyright...)
You are *both* viewing copyright from the wrong side.
It's not even meant to be a balance. It's meant to allow the creator to
make a quick buck (IE Be able to eat) prior to giving it to the people he
created it for (IE The public)
Every time copyright gets extended, or messed with, you, the American
People, are having *YOUR STUFF* stolen.
It would be a wonderful day if you actually figured that out and acted in
a similar way as if they came into your house and stole it.
> Marty
Gav
Non Serviam
- Previous message: srt@nospam.unt.edu: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- In reply to: Marty Fouts: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Next in thread: Ken Ashe: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Next in thread: Bernd Felsche: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Reply: Ken Ashe: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Reply: Dimitri Maziuk: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
