[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

[J.A.Henshaw]

Dylan Reinhardt wrote:

> This conversation shows little sign of resolving anything.  As a service
> for those who might wonder what was accomplished, I offer the following
> precis:

With belaboring too much,  I would like to take this 
oppurtunity to point out that this whole "issue" of law 
would be moot if we knew how and why we are in a mess where 
"case law" substitutes for LAW.

Case law is NOT law and NOT constitutional,  as Jeme said 
too - I agree with him there.

But then he goes on to analyze other things to pieces, 
rather than stopping RIGHT THERE.

It is Law that Patents protect inventions.  For the little guy.

Copyrights, Trademarks, I don't think the constitution 
mentions them.  I'll have to look again ;)

At any rate,  the whole argument would be null if people 
would just wake up and look at the fundamental problem.

I don't care if we're discussing "firearms" vs "arms", 
driving versus travelling, fishing licenses,  hunting 
licenses, OHRV parks on state land albeit federally 
regulated with restrictions and OHRV stickers,  or anything 
else you can name;

If you don't know that there common law remedies for all 
these "problems" then you are missing the point- while you 
labor away trying to convine each other who's right and 
guess at how a court is going to "interpret" a 
law/reg/code/statute you might as well toss a coin.

Common Law: A law is null and void for vagueness; If more 
than ten percent of the people disobey a law it is a bad law-

Why do I mention that?  Well,  if a judge has to interpret a 
law, it is a bad law and should be null and void,  and a 
jury can do so.

Now;  think about a Supreme court who have a split decision 
3-2  on abortion or something: The founders are rolling over 
in their graves-
If the "supreme" judges cannot agree it is a bad law. See?

( I encourage everyone to look up the history on the NUMBER 
of supreme justices and WHY it was changed from an even 
number to an odd number and by WHOM )

Speeding: Do more than ten percent of us disobey? Marijuana?
Mp3 sharing?

It looks to me like copying things that are already in the 
public domain and NOT patented cannot be restricted unless 
you have a commercial adhesion contract binding upon you; 
with the RIAA or whoever-  UCC is what you are arguing.

The question really ought to be:

What venue am I in?  How did I get there? Why am I in a 
position that I have to let a judge decide my fate?

Or am I? If so, is there a way to continue to share files or 
  VHS copies or kernel code and do it without UCC having 
jurisdiction over me?

There is a way;  but first you must recognize the PROBLEM.

This make any sense to anyone so far?

jH