Rights groups target antipiracy directive

TalkBack 22 of 40:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Copyright Holders Shouldn't Remain Ignorant

You can do what you want with your copyrighted works. It is when you step off into business contracts and agreements that you have left the pertainance of what copyright means to its authors. Just because in an of itself copyright law speaks of piracy,this does not mean that those conglomerates that conclude to 'business through you as authors must base itself on the same premise,or denie complete association to the royalties,or benifits of wich come with your authority to do so.

It is shear ignorance wich would allow something as this to be so. Authors really wouldn't have it to be done to them - it is in reality the business part wich creates these law directives in wich they can indemnify themselves without having any inclusion of person when it comes to the use of copyrighted works. By dictating the mention and means of wich that perspective works between the use of the 'effect of an authored works,and premise of 'piracy the reality of wich digital qualifications in person are 'lock stepped with those entities.

Neither the authors that create works,or the law wich is for their benifit should conclude that relationship is anything greater or less that wich the law speaks for. When the lawmakers want more out of 'piracy,and less out of 'right (or feature),the attention is simply drawn without correct premise. As a certainty authors would not benifit to have these things done to themselves,..but it is not the 'authored part of 'right speaking of wich the law elude to. It is speaking of 'effect within right - wich is something being diverted in respect of these persons.

Sure the same goes for the U.K. The person in and of the law itself is for the 'right of the author.While what these do is reflect the 'effect wich is tailored to a piracy premise,rather than the relationship of the author to the work itself,and the person - when that person is exactly a business arrangment,not contigous to the plural of law in and of itself.

So whats the difference between this and Farehheit 451 ? Is it just the imagination that trades momemtum to the security of individuals utilizing copyrighted works.? Trading security of their persons to what a government has decided 'has not a person ?

-just talking.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 03/08/04 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

• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Reducing Server Total Cost of Ownership with VMware Virtualization Software VMware VMware virtualization enables customers to reduce their server TCO and ... 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