On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 23:13, Branden Robinson wrote:
[ I'll respond to the references in their proper place ]
>
> > Well, I don't think we should worry much about Ghana.
>
> I do.
That was supposed to be read with the following two paragraphs, which I
believe would alleviate all of Ghana's problems:
>
> > Either they don't care about copyright or they will get a copy from
> > someone else who has put the URL on there.
> >
> > We should allow re-use of the URL, just like the GPL does of
> > 3-year notices.
That means they just have to photocopy (or write in the sand, or
whatever) someone else's URL.
This also seems to at least help the small-scale copying problem.
>
> Uh, actually, no. If I saw the above language in the latest project on
> Freshmeat, I'd probably wonder what the hell the author was thinking,
I'd wonder what he was smoking, but same sentiment ;-)
> Strictly speaking, if you restrict people in a certain field of endeavor
> from *modifying* or *distributing* the work, you're not violating the
> letter of DFSG 6.
Right. And strictly speaking, you're not violating the letter of the
DFSG if you only allow distribution by:
a) In aggregate as a component with others from different
sources
b) By people who's field of endeavor is distributing
"Branden the Evil Overlord for DPL" bumper stickers.
c) People who's field of endeavor is raising three-eyed llamas.
and only allow selling the CD for (a) and (c).
Of course, I guess by the letter, you are violating DFSG 5. The people
enganged in a given endeavor are certainly a group of persons. At least
until they're replaced by robots.
#### the rest of this message is off-topic ####
>
> Moreover, copyright law does not traditionally restrict use -- that is,
> consumption.
And traditionally it lasted for a limited period of time, and was
strictly a civil matter, and copyright violation was considered less
severe than murder one. But no more.
> It does restrict modification, copying, public
> performance, et al. But a person who witnesses an unlicensed
> performance of a Neil Simon play, for instance, is not infriging
> copyight. Only the performers and production staff are.
Heh. Nowadays, they would call that "contributory copyright
infringement", or the same thing in latin. At least if it were worth
their money to sue you.
>
> As usual, the DMCA has muddies the waters considerably, and makes you a
> lawbreaker if you are in mere possession of a tool that MIGHT be used to
> infringe copyright. It also makes you a lawbreaker if you speak in too
> much detail about tools that MIGHT be used to infringe copyright. And,
> according to the Federal Southern District of New York and 2nd Circuit
> Court of Appeals, it makes you a lawbreaker if you hyperlink to someone
> who is speaking in too much detail about tools that MIGHT be used to
> infringe copyright.
And yet, imagine, you can do all of this for tools of murder. Like
knives and guns and poisons and mystery novels.
>
> I'm tempted to say that it is this kind of mindless, soulless,
> anti-Constitutional, greedy, malicious grab for power that compels
> people to take up arms against their oppressors.
I think its called a 'plutocracy.' Or just a government of, by, and for
f---ing the people.
> But since I really
> don't need a visit from the FBI^WDepartment of Homeland
> Security^W^W^W^WBig Brother, I won't say that.
Of course not. And I won't say that their current actions in holding
citizens not a part of the military in military prisons, indefinitely,
without charges or the right of habeas corpus strikes me as treason.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part