[SATLUG] Man arrested for copying his own CD's
argiod at bresnan.net
Sat Jan 5 13:06:19 CST 2008
So, George Orwell hit it on the head with his novel "1984" when he described
the 'Though Police'. The idea of busting people for 'intent' began with the
60's drug wars. Back then, the police had to prove intent when dealing with
possible paraphernalia. Now things are turned around and it is up to us to
prove lack of intent. Sigh, I remember the days when one was innocent until
proven guilty. We've certainly gone 180 degrees from those days. Now, you can
be put away unless and until you can prove your innocence... which, if they
have determined you're associated with terrorism, will be near impossible as
you will be taken away to a place that is not signatory to the Geneva
Conventions, with no lawyer, no communications, etc. I can almost feel Hitler
grinning from his grave... You may say I'm just being paranoid; but ask any
Jew who survived the holocaust, and see if they don't think we're heading down
the same road to Hell. Only now, you don't have to be a Jew to be taken;
today's only true crime is poverty. If you ain't got the money, then you're
guilty by default.
Of course, this is just my opinion; I could be wrong.
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:52:11 -0600
herb cee <hc at lookcee.com> wrote:
> John Chalinder wrote:
>> Even so:
>> "The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be
>> considered "fair" nor advise on possible copyright violations. If
>> there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney."
>> Which only means that it comes down to whether you can afford a good
>> enough lawyer to get a ruling in your favor over the high priced fancy
>> corporate lawyers; and, sometimes, whether you have the patience and
>> financial 'staying power' to battle it out in court with a corporation
>> that can well afford to tie the case up in court for years. Most drop
>> out due to lack of ability to afford the legal fees for a protracted
>> "The law is a matter of interpretation. And, of course, it is the
>> King's men doing the interpreting." Robin of Locksley
> Yes John, that is the opening that RIAA uses in nearly 30000 *lawsuits
>filed* so far ... they will settle for $2500 on most since you are correct
>the average employed worker would be advised by his attorney to pay it and
>would try to get a payment plan set up. because you will constantly be hauled
>in to respond to motions that drive the billing up several times a year.
> It does need to be decided if copyright extends beyond the actual selling of
>the data. as it stands you can be convicted for intent not actual, the
>precedent is most dangerous. jail for maybe thinking about an action.
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:45 -0600
>> herb cee <hc at lookcee.com> wrote:
>>> Brian Lewis wrote:
>>>> Actually, "fair use" hasn't been determined by a court yet, so we
>>>> can only speculate as to what fair use is.
>>> Your statement is false according to the .gov site this law is codified
>>> Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law,
>>> the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court
>>> decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section
>>> 107 of the copyright law.
>>> Would you please site your source?
> SATLUG mailing list
> SATLUG at satlug.org
> http://alamo.satlug.org/mailman/listinfo/satlug to unsubscribe
> Powered by Rackspace (www.rackspace.com)
More information about the SATLUG