Senate to mull copyright, piracy measures

TalkBack 3 of 3:

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Arent Copyrights Authors People With Names

The idea here,to 'eeeease the stranglehold distributers have over copyrighted effects,from the statement that copyright law is "in and of itself the law for the author"". With new derivitives of digital distribution - the present adjucent 'contract in leiu relationships gained from the use' of authors copyrighted works,are indemnified in the generalization that all copyrighted works are inherently the same statement of 'effect.

In order for a civil proceding there must be a person to the effect of the copyright itself.Doing to the attorney general creates the forray that the argument cannot be defined from a defendant on the basis the distributer cannot provide 'person to their charges. Especially when it is demanded or might be so.

Some of the copyright conglomerates as well can be found to be usurping the mention of copyright law by dispelling piracy,while delegating the effect away from its true disposition of 'lawful ownership,namely the authors that have them through copyright law.

Realistically the 'distribution of copyrighted works are done via a 'contract relationship wich in and of itself has nothing to do with copyright law. When that distribution is said to be 'owner of a copyright - the author/authors authority,is said to be utilizing its legal rights under copyright law. But this is 'distribution rights delegation through something of wich copyright law only portrays of 'right in law for authors. Copyright law does not portray 'distribution of the 'effect. Wich is what doing this binds to the present consistency,and constituency.

Copying a copyrighted work IS NOT ILLEGAL. Specifically when defined via the proper authority to do so. The added value to wich 'feature is known to the consumer through extra commerce receipt,and patronage.Cannot be known because the distribution being held can only consist of what it has already described. And the legal authority while remaining within the true relationship of author and authority remains undefined because the 'distributers outside of copyright law do not believe that the authority of a copyright is the active choice of distribution in any under welcome than their usage of its 'contract law.

When the actuall bearing should be the functionality of distribution of an 'effect wich is an authors to choose. THAT DERIVATIVE BEING THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE DISTRIBUTION THROUGH THERE OWN EFFECTS IN ANY MANNER THEY WISH TO PROVIDE. Wich can be given directly to consumers.

Authors no longer have 'liscence ANYTHING. They can WARRANT the effect.There is no reason to EVER liscence an effect due to distribution within the digital realm.Giving the 'in an of copyright law authority via 'contract delegation.

Congress,Justice Department, has not such 'authority. Neither specification for this commerce,other than the definitions that it has concluded to the premise of piracy.

And there are 'persons.The generalization of 'all copyrights,and 'all distributions,still hides within the imaginations of the limited ideals of several disk companies and movie studios.

These need only the imagination that correctly rationalizes that these persons exist.In goods,patronage,and asset when they are patrons.

The necesity of 'contract of liscence,should not be parloured and tailored for these 'distribution conglomerates. Becuase that is the only generalization of person the 'whole of them can be given. It is not copyright law of wich this distribution is candor to. It is 'contract law.

As a necesity of copyright law,a standard of specification must be created of wich authors,and consumers can choose between the competing asset authors can delegate of their effects. At present their is no competition - but it is not on a basis of copyright law ,it is on a basis of keeping author,authority and asset in 'distribution to be the same 'person. They are not. These distribution authorities are not creating these specifications. They are delegation another person - the consumer to take part in the purchase of 'LISCENCE.

And changing this 'person to the department of justice towards 'civil does exactly the same estabolishment wich 'contract law consists of,paralleling and yet propounding within a premise - that of piracy,wich has no yield of the person in wich stands to gain from their own effects. In this contrast the justice department cannot create the justification of person of 'law via servicing 'business practice,.

What is needed is the definition,and standard within the 'correct premise of commerce,patronage,receipt and asset of 'good within copyrighted works. With authority AND consumers AND products wich are copyrighted AND copyfriendly.

.just talking.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 05/03/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Email Security and Archiving - Clearer in the Cloud Google The time is NOW for businesses and organizations of all sizes to implement ... Download Now
• Open Standards Technologies Provide the Ingredients for Delivering Security Across the Papa Gino's Enterprise Dell Papa Gino's Holdings Corporation founded by the entrepreneur operates one ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now