Antipiracy bill gains new ally

TalkBack 6 of 24:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Interesting Aspect

"""The Copyright Office tends to view copyright law through the narrow lens of what does it mean for copyright owners," he said. "The Copyright Office has not traditionally and certainly not recently viewed as one of its core missions asking, 'How has copyright law affected other areas, such as technology policy and innovation?'" EFF has prepared a fake lawsuit that shows how Apple, Toshiba and CNET Networks could be sued for products and reviews that allegedly "induce" people to violate copyright law"".

The question of a technology is the same as that of a media that intends to use it - is it 'copyfriendly. Certainly copyrights,and authors who would wish to take advantage of the technology wich enhances 'digital distribution of authored copyrighted works' via 'creating that distribution without a manufacuring process would do so. But in the minds eye for a given perspective the question becomes 'let me make that decision''. And well of course many softwares,are already 'copyfriendly,if it is within a backup,or a as in music a given amount of 'burns to disc,or a relevent 'move to a different device.

There simply needs to be a specification for wich digital copyrighted works can retain 'choice among authors,that equals the corresponding consumers knowledge of that choice wich are used for digital technolgies that 'feature them.

For now,it seems as though sure,let me make that choice for myself (sais the author). However this is 'after boarding the consumers affairs through detailing just how 'digital communications in authored copyrighted works will control 'their technology. Copyright office should recognize that there is a person in that of an effect of a copyrighted work.Copyright law did nothing to relate to this through its history,except to notice what detail is described through 'fair-use,however that person exists through that detail.

It is again the distributive qualification of a copyright law that parrellels an authors concern in and of copyright law - the right of a copyrighted work wich is the concern. It is also this 'distributive derivative of copyright law in the concern of 'author,authority of wich copyright law does not delegate in a construction,but a right of law in the copyright for author only.

P2P does not even represent this theory like discussion in premise. P2P is only a derailing artifact of the choice that authors need detail of in their own explicit specification of a feature set enhancing the copyright available through digital fact. Wether or not an author chooses to use that as specification for the distribution is the true adjucent. And if it is considered to have this type of law derail the advent of such a specification in distribution in choice of author retaining copyright law in and of itself,and as well respecting the person in effect of wich the distribution affords the advantage to a copyrighted work above previous unanounced 'contract relationships in 'lieu of copyright law.

The ideal situation is simply a specification for copyrighted works wich is a foundation rather than speculation in the effects of wich its person can choose. Being forded from an authors specification as well. That wich digital technology offers with a 'copyfriendly specification in consumer goods,services,communication,and copyrights.

To the copyright office,the question is not that of copyright law,it is a question of 'contract clause in 'distribution interests. One of wich uses a royalty in monetary to actually tempt the 'performance of effect from being conductive within its own respect of good,and warrant of performance. Being 'copyfriendly does not change the ideals behind 'royalty,being copyrfriendly changes whos design that royalty should be presented from in a given preparation of a distribution conducted via 'value in law of copyright itself.

Something the distributions do not want to debate. That of the asset of the 'effect of a copyrighted work. Since through software it is readily apharent that the mechanism controling the usefulness of a technology can be retained to usury without its person. This being something that does not have to be foundation for a specification of person,patronage,and sale in an effect of a copyrighted work.

The argument isn't all that sophisticated. Copyright law is flawed on the basis of an authors own benificiery inclusive of copyright law itself. Because of the basis of 'distribution is a different person. While the 'right in an effect is only 'inducive that a person exists , however it should be an author in design of their own distribution in wich that design is based.

Being persuaded through another contingency 'that of distribution,as well claiming the consumer 'in person, has no paramount juncture of wich to pass claim to the 'asset in the copyrighted 'effects they know to be their own through monetary purchase. And personal security.

-just talking.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 07/22/04 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

• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... 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
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now