Landmark P2P ruling back in court

TalkBack 5 of 61:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

I kind of agree

with this:

This is not about piracy, but about who can control technological innovation," ...

The idea though goes through the whole gammit of electronics devices that deal with 'new uses of technology.

The mere 'usefulness of the ''internet''organizes a conduit of wich there is a guise of 'usury through business clause in wich the 'person of use - wich could be noticed under 'Home audio Recording act''is said to be a pirate when in any reference is used for the function of the term 'digital.

The functionality of this contracting aparatus is to vacate the person'on the permsiveness of the 'use of a given product - in wich none of a competition exhists wich should between the monopolies producting these 'liscences - they are sold by the same 'disc,and movie manufacturers.... on the prerequisite of a fact a person is vacated to assume 'fair-use is 'piracy on the simple idea of:

copy of a copyrighted product
communciation of a copyrighted product
storage of a device for a copyrighted product

when in terms of delegating the actual premise of technology in wich this is actually a 'digital utility , - it is guise that as part of the utility a necesity is only to premise 'piracy rather than the actual 'feature on the forefront.Wich should be the competitive factor. Instead allaying this piracy premise that a complacent benifactor of this technology should in fact surrender its functionality via their person instead of weighing this competition as the means rather than the end for with those persons exist to.

This has little to do with P2P but with the statement of what technology can do.Security is a jolly big whoop when you know what a feature something of a copyrighted item can utilize.However demonizing every article of a copyrighted item to mean something that is theirs alone - in any proportion of the term 'use without its person,and characterizing that person and technology as a 'pirate is simply a fallacy to both the objects of copyright,and the objects of technology.

There has been nothing worked about for wich the 'digital utility has been defined. Copy,storage, - all of these cannot be left for a premise of piracy. They must be counted as a feature of a copyrighted work doing so as a feature. But lets not leave the persons out so that the mere thought of asset within these persons are considered the 'bounty of a piracy attack. Since they are far from this.

The studios do not provide the feature of them.They have decided to aquire through business contract easily definable mention of their wares.And still must be ascertainable to the person of there legal status wether there are persons of royalty,or feature for a given work.The value is what the consumer has for their use within the digital utility.The copyright side can address this as the 'new technology can be defined by them.

DMCA does not however tell that a copyrighted product cannot have these to feature.The security involved does not as well preclude that of the person utilizing there own person in the environment of its use.

It is just as well these should be competitive features.And the freedom of a person to do so has nothing to do with the person of the copyright.

Subjectively the technology is not defined by the presence of a copyrighted work.It is defined by the persons of the copyright,and/or the person in the use of it. The monopolies do not recognize these except by a traditional business arangement.And the hypocrocy is to allow the technogy to be a subjugate of something no exhisting law has yet to define by usage,or person while defining the description of person by denying its exhistance to the asset of the copyrighted product,and to the technology itself.


And yes its hilarious when you think big whoop its on a song or something.But then you think as well this is somebodies 'fair-use stuff.Again 'the person',the product''may be in fact something that cannot be represented by those who beleive they have a legal agreement to do so.Becuase it is in the form and person it is.That include artists,authors,and production studios.

Its jolly laughable things dont play like that.



-just talking.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 02/02/04 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

• 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
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now