Hi Steve, Well said. Thank you! Can we now move on with discussing Open Source? ;)
Kind regards, Manfred Riem [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.manorrock.org/ Founding Java Champion -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven H. McCown Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:01 AM To: 'LDS Open Source Software' Subject: RE: [Ldsoss] Boy Scouts get a "Respect Copyrights" activity badge On Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:49 AM Jesse Stay wrote: >IANAL but it *shouldn't* be okay to download movies and music that >weren't intended to be downloaded for free, but it *is* legal. Fair use doctrine... Actually, fair use doctrine is *not* applied to downloads. Fair use only says that once you have copyrighted material, that ***you*** are allowed to make a backup copy and to quote from it. It does not provide for general purpose download sites to exist. Breaking encryption is also prohibited unless certain conditions are met. Here are the 2 main positions on this matter: Position #1: Some say that it should be allowable for people having purchased music and DVD's to then download electronic copies to their digital players. Position #2: Free download sites do not and can not monitor who has purchased a licensed copy. Therefore, they cannot confirm whether they are illegally distributing or not. Both positions are valid. Here's the $64 question: "How can Position #1 be protected while addressing the concerns of those who support Position #2?" Resolve this concern and you will become famous. Yesterday, I was in DC, on business, and I visited the National Archives, where I ran across the following quote: "However combinations or associations of the above description [factions] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." -- George Washington, Farewell Address It seems to me that both sides of this debate are falling into this trap. So what do we do? We obey the law, while, if we so choose, working to change it. The old Napster was taken down, because it participated in and facilitated illegal activities. There are numerous individuals who participated in those activities who have/are/will be *rightfully* sued under current US law. In those cases, parents of participating kids were sued and forced to repay $1000's to tens of thousands of dollars. This can be an incredible burden on a family that can barely afford their internet connection. The new Boy Scout patch may serve Hollywood, but it also serves to educate in an effort to teach Scouts about the current law. The patch will help teach scouts how not to make their parents liable for large sums of money. The purpose of the patch is not to debate current law, but simply to educate about it. Don't confuse your opinion of what the law should be with what the law is... Steve _______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss _______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
