Begin forwarded message:
From: John Bartas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: August 19, 2006 1:03:51 PM EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IP] more on who is to blame -- riaa
Dave: For IP, if you will.
Keep in mind that organizations like the RIAA have spent millions
of dollars and many decades progressively hijacking the copyright
laws. The Founding Fathers wisely set the duration of U.S. copyrights
to 15 years. The music and movie vendors, via corrupt politicians,
have now bloated that up to a century. Now they're attacking our fair
use rights via the DMCA and broadcast flags.
The original intent of copyright law was to reward the people who
create copyrightable works - music, movies, books, software. I make
my living doing this, and 15 years is more than enough time for me to
get my reward. Boosting it to 100 years does not make me (or any
other creator) work any harder. Just ask your favorite creator.
So even if the RIAA did stick to legitimate legal channels, their
conduct is still reprehensible.
-JB-
David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Edward Almasy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: August 19, 2006 11:38:34 AM EDT
To: Steve Lamont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on who is to blame -- riaa
On Aug 19, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Steve Lamont wrote:
Reprehensible conduct? Those are pretty strong words.
All I see are companies defending their own legal property rights,
just like a homeowner might defend their own property rights
against a
neighbor taking a chunk of their land.
The reprehensible conduct isn't the RIAA and
company going through legal channels to defend
their property rights; it's the RIAA using their
size and bankroll to intimidate people into
capitulating to their demands without a legal fight.
Almost all of the people the RIAA has gone after
have never had their day in court to test whether
the rule of law really is on the RIAA's side
in their case, because they can't afford the legal
costs to do so. While it could be argued that the
RIAA is still following the letter of the law in
flexing their legal muscle, I think it's clear in
most cases that their approach is rendering the
spirit of the law moot.
Ed
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as [email protected]
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
