Canada deems P2P downloading legal

TalkBack 30 of 41:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Ah But what does P2P have to do with Fair-Use

P2P on the way that P2P works (one to many)shouldn't be a model wich defines the way users of copyrighted works can or cannot do what they will for from their communications.

In this respect 'uploading,while speaking of P2P,is still P2P.Communications however are inclusive of P2P in another different define - as person to person,although you wouldn't use the p2P to show this.

It isn't the respect of copyright law to do this.Nor is it respect of computer technology.It is the respect of persons doing so,and of the relationship involved to do so.

The confusion of going to the most general enlightenment of using the association with programs such as kazza is,that while all this talk of law can be inducive to it. Nobody has had bearing to be any more subjective about their own relationship to communication and copyrighted works than that described by the rules noted in the process of creating the laws wich compare to it.

In the communicative capacity,upload,or download,is adaptive to a singular reference -that of defining copyrighted works as a communication session ,without noting it as being so.

While for most equitable measure,most off the web materials wich are noted as 'copyright violations,are actually 'fair-use violations.Somebodies personal dub,somebodies personal copy of a music/video disc (and the idea of record from copy is as well subjective),..in this instance the difference between copyright violation is that of the inducement of the 'performance of the work,in that it is an artifact of 'fair-use,but no longer if it is put up to public disposition. Fair-use can no longer be argued,although it is a 'fair-use violation,as compared to depriving the author of its rights to sale (as from counterfeitted disc sales for example).

The public comparison of P2P,or Kazaa,whichever has nothing to do with the functional relationship of wich 'fair-use would persuade its discussions to be candered to. Some may share that the functionality of P2P,or Kazzaa IS 'fair-use,but there was already a person to this until this was 'fact of this no longer rationalized.

While I will continue to argue to the point of communication of copyrighted works to be keyed in on 'fair-use,over and above what is seen for 'one to many. This would not,and could not be a requisite of what is being denoted to upload,download,because in a sense the debate there was 'one-to-many ,in the computer essence of communication the performance.While what I'm speaking of is the person-to-person wich may be computer mechanical in nature but is in fact communication.

Connotating that 'upload,or download as a single detail of communication.Deeming it something wich is conducive to 'fair-use of communication of copyrighted works,again regards the incorrect premise of associating the person,with person of work,to be that of the mechanical mention only.And it is completely irrevlevant to the 'fair-use of communication of copyrighted works because this 'fair-use,has a person of use. The communicative curcumstance is as well indusive to that aspect only.Distant persons being preocupied with the mention of 'download,or upload need only be relevent that they are communicating,and that communication is a complete communication - for both person,and copyrighted work.

The subtility then is that aspect to denote the 'fair-use communication of copyrighted works is connotated by download,or upload.While they are connotated by only 'persons and communication.If upload,and download wish to pertain to the subjective reasons,I can again tell that 'persons of use ,in copyrighted works exist to their persons.They do not exist to the copyrighted authors.Just the same as the communicative curcumstance exist for communication,the persons remain the same.

If and when authors,distributors,and the like want to bear relationship to persons of use according the 'rational fair-use of them.Then they will do so. However the utilization of communication is only a single aspect unto itself.Where person of copyright,and person of use are as well completely aware that communication exists for both.

If it was that a detail was related to 'fair-use and a person of use was that detail as it related to law,then their would be a premise to adaquately adress them in perspective of 'author,and person of use.

But since there is not.It remains only obvious to be so subjective is detailing something pertaining to associating a different effect.(e.g. the reason for p2p is for upload,download,..the reason for communicating is for communication)....

This is another reason considerations of 'fair-use are being abused within the confidents of one-to-many 'fair-use personal dubs,copyrighted work re-creations (copy,record).And 'fair-use persons should be aware of this.Your fair use is not a conduction of participation of P2P oriented mechanics.


______________

I kind of wonder the reasoning that DVDs are so vehemeintly persuaded that they 'should-be-covered elsewhere. It is obvious that the relationship between owners of DVDs could choose to use them with the technical feature of storing them to a hardrive. Instintively the run for your money at your computer by a DVD distributer wanting control of your machinery should be noticed from that perspective. The idea being that if an industry notices something that is a complete advantage to them can they take advantage of it.(see the double eye there).

Having the advantage of copying a DVD to a hardrive as a feature of the DVD itself when bought,at no charge or manufacturing cost to the distributer,would certainly seem to be an advantage to the DVD manufacturers,consumers,and financial arrangements all around.

Putting too much enphesis on 'fair-use violation,and not enough on using that utility to ones advantage leaves only the question that remains of the suggestion.

Only difference between audio,and video,is that video has a light,where audio does not have any.

So why continue to persuade that these 'fair-use violations,are 'copyright violations.? Because they carry a bigger tune,or because of the fact they carry at all ?

Its in the design of things.So this must be different things...or not.Why every and all would choose 'or not,still gives every reason to persuade that if you got them use them.Copyrights.


-just talking.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 12/14/03 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

• Live Webcast: Activate Today! Realize ROI with Intel(r) vPro? Technology and LANDesk Intel Join the team from the Intel vPro Expert Center for an informative Webcast ... Download Now
• ENTERPRISE SECURITY MUST GET SMARTER Trend Micro Internet security threats are always changing but what types of attacks ... Download Now
• Breaking DB2 Platform Barriers Quest Software Are you supporting DB2 on multiple platforms? In this Quest white paper ... Download Now