Re: Copyrights and Wrongs, from The Netly News

At 11:28 AM 11/20/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:

>*********

>http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1588,00.html

>The Netly News (http://netlynews.com/)
>November 20, 1997

>Copyrights and Wrongs
>By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)

>     While you're cooling your heels in Club Fed, you'll
>have plenty of time to consider your misdeeds -- which in
>this case could have been making just three copies of Adobe
>Photoshop (cost: $389). The legislation covers anyone who
>copies compact discs, videocasettes or computer software
>worth at least $1,000. The No Electronic Theft Act, which
>President Clinton is expected to sign later this month,
>will be the first law in the history of the U.S. to
>imprison copiers looking to save (not make) a few bucks.

        It is interesting that while almost the entire body of copyright
law deals with materials other then what is to be covered, the industry has
enough clout to get their's singled out for the first criminal penalties
for violation. 

        This leaves the bulk of copyrighted material, printed material,
photographs and the like open to being stolen as does nizkor for example. 


-=-=-
The 2nd guarantees all the rest.

Mikhael Frieden <mikhaelf@mindspring.com> writes:

>         This leaves the bulk of copyrighted material, printed material,
> photographs and the like open to being stolen as does nizkor for example.

Nizkor are criminals in many other ways as well.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

At 5:32 AM -0700 11/23/97, Mikhael Frieden wrote:

>        It is interesting that while almost the entire body of copyright
>law deals with materials other then what is to be covered, the industry has
>enough clout to get their's singled out for the first criminal penalties
>for violation.
>
>        This leaves the bulk of copyrighted material, printed material,
>photographs and the like open to being stolen as does nizkor for example.

I mentioned this point back when I was on the Cyberia-l list a few years ago.

Some of the law professors on the list were complaining that their
copyright rights were being violated by the quoting or forwarding of
articles.

And the major newspapers were sending out threatening letters, which were
generally heeded by the "offenders."

Well, what about _my_ stuff? (More generally, anybody's stuff.)

Why  does Professor Joe Shmoe or "The New Attleboro Times" have a greater
claim to "copyright violations" than Fred Nobody?

This is a semi-rhetorical question, as it mostly involves who is willing to
hire a lawyer to enforce such property claims. But, as M. Frieden notes,
the deck is stacked in favor of large newspapers, publishers, and even
professional authors, and is stacked against private individuals and lesser
authors gaining access to the courts.

"Some copyrights are more equal than others."

(Personally, I don't really believe in copyrights.)

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."