[conspire] Book Burning continues thanks to the Feds

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):

> I disagree with that.  First, its not property, and the comparision is
> inapropriate. 

Disagree all you want.  The entire worldwide court system, plus 
United States Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 render your
view irrelevant.  And anyway, it doesn't even _matter_ whether you 
want to raise a tizzy over the word 'property', so spare us the 
shibbloeth[1]:  The point is that copyrights exist and vouchsafe
reserved rights to owners, that Authors Guild and co-plaintiff represent
only the tiniest sliver of all rights owners, and that neither Google,
Inc. nor Judge Chin has any business stripping rights from those
non-litigating owners without a top-to-bottom rewrite of the nation's
copyright laws by Congress and a renegotiation of international
copyright law by the nations of the world.

Don't try to ignore those _vital_ surrounding facts by merely posting 
the idiotic dodge of 'Well, I don't agree about it being property.'
It doesn't _gently caressing matter_ whether you agree about it being 
property.  That's entirely irrelevant to the point under scrutiny.

As an aside, however, I _do_ get really tired of software ideologues
trying to claim that copyrights, or patents, or trade secrets, or
trademarks are 'not property', especially when I have extensively
studied business law and they haven't (and basically know only what they
_want_ to be true).  Give it a rest; save both of us time trying.

At least you don't have a Scandinavian surname, or you'd be _really_
getting the sharp edge if my tongue, chaver Ruben.  ;->  (But hey, I
believe I've served you lingonberries at my house, so you're hereby
declared honorary Norwegian.  Welcome!)

> Secondly, that's not what Google did.  They scanned books
> largely out of print adn unlocked that wealth of information.  It should
> be allowed wether the authors wish it or not.

Sorry, this _doesn't even contradict_ what I said.  

> Further, the settlement would not have prevented another company from
> likewise scanning books, especailly out of print works and doing the
> same.

Untrue unless you mean 'and thereby commit copyright violation and risk
owing huge damages'.  

The right that would have been granted by the proposed (and now
rejected) settlement to Google, Inc. made no provision whatsoever for
any similar rights to any other party.  So, the only way 'another
company' could have likewise 'scann[ed] books' and published them on the
Internet without copyright holder permission would be for that second
company to run the same infringement lawsuit gauntlet all over again,
and find a second compliant judge.

> Law that thinks about this as "property" needs to be reversed and google
> should start to lobby for a change in the law.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but completely irrelevant to present discussion.

Finally, I notice you have so far disregarded my other serious points,
e.g., the summary jettisoning in the now-rejected settlement of
antitrust concerns, censorship protection, and privacy.  Sorry to see
that. 

[1] History's first recorded instance of two-factor authentication:
Sefer Shoftim 12:5-6.  Fortunately, I have an excellent Gileadic accent.

-- 
Rick Moen                        "A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot."
rick at linuxmafia.com                                -- Max Weinreich, linguist
McQ!  (4x80)