[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

J.A.Henshaw jhenshaw at dsl-only.net
Wed Mar 27 21:11:54 UTC 2002


Jeme A Brelin wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, 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:
>>
> 
> I'd like to say that I disagree with your choice of summary quotations.
> 
> 
>>Beginning
>>---------------------
>>You > "It's also fair use to spread the tape around and even make copies
>>for people free of charge"
>>Me > "Fair Use is not so broadly defined as all that"
>>
> 
> This is fine enough.
> 
> 
>>End
>>---------------------
>>Me > "I await proof that [your interpretation] reflect[s] the laws of the
>>land we live in"
>>You > "How about, instead, adopting them as your ideas and working to change
>>the law of the land we live in should that law oppose these ideas?"
>>
> 
> Here's where you're WAY off.
> 
> You challenged me to find caselaw that supported my position.  However, my
> position represents FREEDOM, not restriction and so caselaw is far less
> likely to exist.
> 
> It's a bit like saying to me, "Yes, well, free speech isn't as broad as
> all that.  I await proof that you can shout "Geeflarb carbunckle!" from
> your window at noon on a Sunday."
> 
> Our legal system is based on restrictions, not allowances.  We do not
> define all those things which are legal, only those which are illegal.
> 
> I can't prove a negative.
> 
> Instead, we reverse the challenge and try to prove the positive.  Show me
> that it is ILLEGAL.  Show me a case of non-commercial, private copying and
> distribution resulting in a successful infringement decision.  Since such
> copying and distribution is so very common, it shouldn't be difficult if
> your theory has been upheld.
> 
> 
>>Conclusions (mine)
>>---------------------
>>1. We both like to argue.
>>
> 
> True enough.
> 
> 
>>2. Neither of us are lawyers.
>>
> 
> Not yet.
> 
> 
>>3. You still haven't shown a single example of a court acting as
>>though your interpretation of the law has any legal standing or
>>objective merit.
>>
> 
> Nor have you.
> 
> You showed that the codified fair use doctrine is applied in a cumbersome
> and considered way, but you haven't shown that the act I endorse is
> illegal.  It's illegal IN YOUR OPINION, but, as you said, you're not a
> lawyer.
> 
> 
>>I'll be the first to admit I don't know it all and I would happily
>>read any substantive example of a court finding that outlines the
>>legal relevance of your opinions.
>>
> 
> And while I'm at it, I'll find substantive court findings that hold that I
> have the right to look over someone's shoulder as they read on the bus or
> check out the magazines in the house where I'm sitting whilst the owners
> are away.  There isn't such caselaw.  Legal theories can exist that these
> acts are protected or restricted, but nobody's brought a suit, so how do
> you KNOW?
> 
> You assume liberty until it is specifically restricted.  And a law means
> nothing until it is interpreted by the courts.
> 


A law is the law,  unless a jury nullifys it.

A court's job is to APPLY the law AS WRITTEN-

NOT to INTERPRET the law.


If it needs interpretation is should be rewritten or be null 
and void for vagueness.

How many of us can understand the 2nd amendment?

Who needs an interpreter to get the meaning of "the right to 
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'?

There is a reason it is written in simple language - with a 
long history that goes back to before the signing of the 
Magna Charta in 1512.


> 
>>Until then, please forgive me if I take the reactionary position of
>>suggesting that the unauthorized mass appropriation of other people's
>>work is *highly questionable* both in terms of moral integrity and
>>statutory legality.
>>
> 
> I ask for no forgiveness and make no apologies for finding reference to
> interpersonal communication as "appropriation" and "theft" not just
> morally questionable, but contrary to the obvious nature information and
> ideas.  It is unnatural and obscene.
> 
> J.
> 

And you are perfect candidate for a lawyer,  because you 
have a knack for picking apart anything and everything and 
writing about it in exhausting detail;  serving to wear down 
the opposition due to snoring and eyestrain.


Jeme does not believe in private property rights,  therefore 
anything he says must be weighed against his desire for a 
global marxist society with no borders and no personal wealth.

Even though what he desires is impossible, unjust, and 
unlawful under this country's laws and God's law ( do no 
covet thy neighbor's posessions )
- and ignores history and would be the cause of much mayhem 
and destruction of life and property to achieve.


-- 
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they 
will have for lunch.





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list