[lcaillo]

...nowadays this country wants to shut down the back door to any kind of copying for the benefit of a selected group of ambitious and greedy people.

What do you mean by "this country wants to?" I don't think that the country wants to at all. I think "this country" wants reasonable protection of intelectual property, which is reasonable. "this country" was not founded on any idea that anyone should be able to copy anyone else's work. That is a matter of technology and availablility of media which has changed dramatically over the years. I was not among the founding principles of our nation.

 

[lcaillo]

You seem to be confusing different issues to justify something that you claim you don't even support.

It was not one of the founding principles that we be able to freely copy another's work. It was common practice at the time because the technology of media and its distribution were so difficult. Over two centuries that has changed and the value of intelectual property has become more significant relative to the cost of printing and distribution. This country would not have a problem with another "stealing" its founding documents and using them to write their own. This is very different than someone pirating a DVD.

You said yourself that there should be protections as long as they do not become unreasonable. The real question is where that line is drawn and suggesting that

"We as a country have done it but now we look the other way and don't want anybody else to even think about doing it for a fair or any other cause (Shutting the door) and for making sure this happens we lead and promote International laws for protecting intellectual material."

is simply an incorrect argument applied out of context.

I think that we nearly all agree that copyright protection is a reasonable thing and also that some degree of fair use should exist. Please do not make an argument where there is none. Your argument is with a few ridiculous lawsuits and judicial rulings and a few ambigous laws, not with anyone here, the way our country was founded, nor with "this country" in general.

Yes, you have presented the facts, but you used them to justify a rant with extreme statements that don't connect very well and to preach to the choir with respect to your real point. It is not necessary to attribute intent to the whole country incorrectly nor to suggest that the country was formed based upon the legitimacy of piracy to argue that fair use is a sensible concept.

 

[lcaillo]

I think you are right on target, Marshall. We don't need to make more of the issue than there is, and I believe that the posts that you were responding to very much created a sense of fear and suggested a much more dire future than is justified by a reading of the judgements to date.

The fact is that people will continue to make copies for their own purposes and there will never be anything that will be done about it in a practical way. It will never be cost effective to pursue those who are distributing copies, and publishers really don't want to go down that public relations road. KScape was a target because they are successful and making a profit, even though they did not violate the terms of the contracts and have been completely cooperative and supportive of copyright holders and their right to control distribution. If there is unreasonable success in the courts rejecting fair use, you can be sure that there will be legislation to reel it back in. For now, the courts have mainly concerned themselves with technical matters of specific cases and not done anything to restrict fair use.