Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers
From: Kevin Gowen (kgowenNOSPAM_at_myfastmail.com)
Date: 12/06/04
- Next message: Kevin Gowen: "Re: Aids in Africa"
- Previous message: necoandjeff: "Re: Aids in Africa"
- In reply to: James Rose: "Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers"
- Next in thread: James Rose: "Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers"
- Reply: James Rose: "Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:33:31 -0500
James Rose wrote:
>>Please pay attention. As I said in an earlier post:
>>"If you are going to raise the fact that there is an act called the "No
>>Electronic Theft Act", please don't." The popular name of the statute
>>has zero legal effect. The Wild Horse Annie Act is a good example of
>>this. That law does not regulate people called Wild Horse Annie.
>
>
> You would contend, and have the readers of your position believe that our
> congress, our elected lawgivers, our IQ of 140 on average by their own claim
> legislators,
IQ of 140? Wow, on what scale? Stanford-Binet? Cattell? Wechsler?
> made the majority decision to name and title this act in
> question with the word "THEFT" - an act which ammends copyright law in the
> USA... without the slightest intention whatsoever that anyone should ever
> view the act of infringement on copyright as an act of theft?
I don't think that Congress enacts legislation to make anyone view a
given act as anything. Congress's intent is to compel the action or
forbearance of the citizenry. They could not care less about how people
view things. All that matters is the language of the statute, and the
language of the statute says nothing equating copyright infringement to
theft.
The law is very clear on this matter. Copyright infringement is not
theft. I do not know why this is so hard to understand.
> Kevin, this isn't an opinion written by a law professor on the historical
> relevance of case law in interpreting what copyright is or isn't. This is
> an enactment of new legislation by an overwhelming majority of your congress
> which has deliberatly and purposely entitled with the word THEFT and
> forever-more associated the act of copyright enfringement with THEFT...
> Period. THE END.
Really? Where did Congress make that association?
It seems that your only support for your claim that copyright
infringement is theft is the fact that certain amendments made to Titles
17 and 18 were collectively called the No Electronic Theft Act. That
argument is a loser.
> As I pointed out to you... it is not the "POPULAR" name. It is the official
> legal name of the act... which was part of the act when it was voted for.
Actually, "popular name" is the correct terminology. See
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/topn/
Perhaps you think that Congress has also passed a bill of attainder on
Dale Bumpers.
Oh, and what are the elements of "theft of copyright"?
-- Kevin "This is the best election night in history."--Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Nov. 2, 2004, just before 8 p.m. EST
- Next message: Kevin Gowen: "Re: Aids in Africa"
- Previous message: necoandjeff: "Re: Aids in Africa"
- In reply to: James Rose: "Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers"
- Next in thread: James Rose: "Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers"
- Reply: James Rose: "Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
