[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dmca-discuss
Subject:    Re: [DMCA_Discuss] Compromise copyright bill in works
From:       "Robert F. Bodi" <lawlists () bodi ! com>
Date:       2003-02-25 0:03:32
[Download RAW message or body]

Okay, I think that I better understand what it is you object to.  As to the
over-constraints of shrink-wrap licensing and the like, I agree that the law
should put some constraints on that.  EULA's of the shrink-wrap kind (where
there is no actual negotiation between the parties) should be constrained by
law.  In a similar vein, UCITA is of similar concern wherein it seems to
protect software developers for making crappy products.  Both of these
issues are not really copyright issues, but more contractual issues.  I
don't see why software sellers should get any more benefits than sellers of
other products.

-Bodi


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Sulzberger" <jays@panix.com>
To: "Robert F. Bodi" <lawlists@bodi.com>
Cc: <dmca_discuss@lists.microshaft.org>; "Jay Sulzberger" <jays@panix.com>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [DMCA_Discuss] Compromise copyright bill in works


>
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Robert F. Bodi wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jay Sulzberger" <jays@panix.com>
> > To: <dmca_discuss@lists.microshaft.org>
> > Cc: "Jay Sulzberger" <jays@panix.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:31 AM
> > Subject: Re: [DMCA_Discuss] Compromise copyright bill in works
> >
> >
> > > The issue is not copyright infringement.
> >
> > That was what we were discussiong.
>
> No.
>
> Let us slightly modify the objects under discussion.  Suppose we consider
> dinner plates.  Let us suppose that the plates have a design which is
> copyrighted, and the holder of the copyright is the vendor.  Now suppose
> the vendor would like to sell more plates per year than they now sell.
> Suppose the vendor were to try imposing a EULA which reads in part:
>
>   The design on these plates is licensed for 1000 dining instances (see
>   section 3.14 for the definition of a dining instance).  All rights to
the
>   plates revert to the company after 1000 dining instances.  You may apply
>   for an extension license at any time before the 1000th dining instance.
>
> Now suppose further that the vendor had persuaded Congress and the FCC to
> pass laws and regulations requiring that every house in America be
equipped
> with an electronic surveillance system that would allow copyright holders
> to see when your license had run out.  Suppose further that Congress had
> passed a law that disabling the surveillance system were a felony.
>
> Now what is the issue here?  It is not copyright infringement.
>
> >
> > >
> > > The issue is the massive push by the Englobulators to end private
> > ownership
> > > of computers, and to end free private, tribal, business, and public
use of
> > > our Net.
> >
> > "Englobulators"?  Can you please explain?  Who, exactly, is trying to
end
> > private ownership of computers?  Or public use of the 'Net?
>
> "Englobulators" is a term of art meaning the loose alliance of cartels,
> monopolies, and governments, which act against our right and power of
> private ownership of computers, and our rights and powers of free
> communication over the Net.
>
> >
> > > We need not discuss "compromise".  We hold a tremendous advantage
today in
> > > that we own one billion untrammeled computers, computers which by
> > > installing free operating systems we may place entirely under our
control.
> > > Further, today we may freely communicate over our Net.
> >
> > I seriously doubt that there are one billion computers using free
operating
> > systems.
>
> Indeed, but the barriers to installation of a free OS today are different
> in kind from even the mildest of hardware DRM, such as that of the
> Microsoft Xbox.  To date, as far as I know, no one has booted a free OS on
> an Xbox without hardware modification.  Palladium, of course, would be a
> much stronger barrier to installation of a free OS than the feeble
hardware
> DRM of the Xbox.
>
> There are about 200,000,000 IBM style peecees running a free OS today, if
we
> take one billion as the number of IBM style peecees sold, and twenty
> percent as the proportion running a free OS.
>
> >
> > > Issues of copyright, issues of honesty of labelling, have nothing to
do
> > > with our right of private ownership of computers and our right to make
> > free
> > > use of our Net.
> >
> > Sure they do.  Obviously, you cannot use the 'Net in any illegal manner.
> > Thus, if you perform illegal monetary transactions, use the 'net to sell
> > drugs, or infringe the copyrights of others, you are liable for criminal
> > and/or civil penalties.  Oh, you can probably DO them, but you will
suffer
> > the consequences.
>
> Yes.  But the principles of private ownership of computers and free use of
> the Net are themselves under attack now.  I never said "illegal uses of
the
> Net".  Doubtless there are many, but they are today specific exceptions to
> the general principles of free speech and free assembly.  I never said
> "illegal use of a computer".  Doubtless today there are many, but they are
> today specific exceptions to the general principle of private ownership of
> computers and freedom of action inside your own home.
>
> The central ideology of the Englobulators is that we have no rights of
> ownership or of free speech or of free assembly: that, really, by right
and
> power, the Englobulators actually own the entire world, and all our
ancient
> rights and new powers are limited exceptions, of mere expedience, to the
> more fundamental rights and powers of the Englobulators.  This is a new
> Enclosure Movement, and we will stop it, but before we can mobilize and
> act, we must grasp what the war is about.
>
> Of course we do not hold our computers and we do not use the Net at the
> sufferance of the Englobulators.  The Englobulators have no legitimate
> claims whatsoever, not to one single computer, not to one single
> communications medium.  There is no compromise to be made, indeed there is
> nothing to discuss with them.
>
> >
> >  > Nor does copyright, nor rules of labelling, have anything
> > > to do with our practical powers of private control and use of
computers in
> > > our homes and offices, and our practical powers of communication over
our
> > > Net.
> >
> > No?  Plenty of lawsuits and criminal charges being filed for improper
uses.
> > What gives you the belief that you can flaunt the laws of society just
> > because you are doing so using a computer and some wires?  Sorry to
break
> > this to you, but you must follow the rules just like anybody else.
> >
> > -Bodi
>
> Richard, you have perhaps not read carefully what I wrote.  I admit that I
> have not written much on this list, and what I have written is much
> compressed.  But where have I ever suggested breaking traditional
copyright
> laws?  Where I have ever suggested taking away the computers of the
> Englobulators, except after due legal process?  But the Englobulators
> propose to overthrow all traditional American copyright law and practice,
> and the Englobulators propose to end my right of private ownership of a
> computer and to end my practical power to control the computer in my
house.
>
> No, it is the Englobulators who hold our case law, our statute law, and
our
> Constitution in contempt.  Not I.
>
> oo--JS.
>

_______________________________________________


------------------------
http://www.anti-dmca.org
------------------------

DMCA_Discuss mailing list
DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org
http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]