[conspire] Book Burning continues thanks to the Feds

[Ruben Safir]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 07:13:15PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):
> 
> > If you don't register a copyrighted work, the LOC and courts won't help
> > you.  I've been through enough hearings at the Department of Commerce, the
> > LOC and Judiciary Sub-Committees of both the house and senate, about 14
> > times and counting,  to know that as a fact.
> 
> Then, you 'know as a fact' something that is not the case.
> 

It is the case and you can read the DMCA hearings for the copyrights
commisions position on this OUTRIGHT.  Despite the statute, it is the
policy of the US government prioritize (ie INGORE anything BUT )
registered copyright works for the purposes of infringment.

We don't want to start listing all the dead statues on the books, do we?



>   Title 17, Chapter 5, section 504:
> 
>   Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
> 
>   (a) In General. -- Except as otherwise provided by this title, an
>   infringer of copyright is liable for either --
>   (1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits
>   of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or
>   (2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c). 
>   [...]
> 
> As a copyright owner whose 17 U.S.C. 106 exclusive rights under
> copyright have been infringed, you get the courts to 'help you' by 
> bringing civil litigation against the infringer under 17 U.S.C. 504
> (above).  
> 
> Whether _statutory_ damages can be collected depends on other factors,
> some of which are detailed in the remainderof 17 U.S.C. 504 (omitted)
> and in administrative law -- which mostly amount to 'Did you register
> at the Copyright Office, establishing constructive notice?'  If you
> didn't, and didn't achieve actual notice in other ways, then you get
> awarded actual damages and an injunction, but no statutory damages.
> 
> 
> > Secondly, the Berne convention can scratch my tuchas.  It was a change
> > in statutary law to conform with the Berne Convention which caused that
> > complete insanity.
> 
> No, the _Berne Convention_ was not a change in statutory law.  The 
> _Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988_ was a change in statutory
> law, patching various provisions of 17 U.S.C. to _mostly_ align Federal
> copyright law with the Berne Convention, deliberately making exceptions
> in two areas (moral rights and copyright formalities).
> 
> 
> > Sooner or later the Berne Convention will be called on as
> > unconstitutional. 
> 
> Less vague, please.  Kindly outline a credible theory of law.
> (I'm not holding my breath, as in fact there is no Constitutional 
> issue.)
> 
> 
> > This has never been a legal battle.
> 
> That is correct.  So, enough already with the bullshit legal arguments
> from someone who doesn't actually understand the law.  It wastes
> everyone's time and does your credibility no favours.
> 
> 

Law is a Theory, not just a stack of papers, and it is grounded and
practiced within the confines of that legal theory.

In the case of Copyright, it is grounded in the Queen Anne Statues and
the US Constitution, and 350 years of copyright rulings, and statutes,
which has only been radicalized recently.

and as i said, it is section 102 that is the most problematic, and in
conflict with existing legal theory.  Strangly enough, we just heard
that Supreme court diferentiated Coperate Privacy from Individual
Privacy.  Its one of the first times they'd done anything like that and
my guess is that more is coming.

But I do agree that the battle is primarily a political one and I have
no faith in the legal system to resolve in inconsistancies in copyright
law and its conflicts with other areas of law, especially article 5 of
the US consitution.



Ruben

> _______________________________________________
> conspire mailing list
> conspire at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire

-- 
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software

So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world  - RI Safir 1998

http://fairuse.nylxs.com  DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"

"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."

"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt.  I guess you missed that one."

© Copyright for the Digital Millennium