[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Mind you, Eldred v. Ashcroft does currently establish the Constitutionality of the law, but you should remember that in the past the Court held Segregation was Constitutional only to overturn itself after nearly a century of segregation.

Very true, but I see no indication that copyright law will receive the same treatment. Do you?

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Actually, the Court said you do in fact have a right to duplicate a work of art provided you own a legal copy and the purpose of the copy is format or time shifting or to make an archival copy.

OK, but that's not what we're discussing. Sharing out a digital file to 100 million of your bestest Internet buddies does not qualify for that exemption.

And yes, it does seem to me that's the kind of "sharing" that Stallman is including in his range of "acceptable use." I didn't see any exemptions for eMusic or Amazon's or iTunes+ (i.e. commercial DRM-free music sales) in his article.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Neither the congress nor any body can legislate a new right; it might constrain the exercise of a right to protect other rights or it might codify a right but that codification does not mean that right did not exist prior to its codification.

The origin of rights is a complicated philosophical issue that extends beyond the scope of a typical ebook forum. However, even if we accept your characterization, both prior to and after the invention of an easy sharing / copying mechanism (e.g. magnetic tape players), you did not and still do not have the (legal) right to duplicate or distribute a given work of art, other than the existing exemptions (e.g. fair use, public domain). Inventing a tape recorder may extend human abilities but that does not necessarily, in and of itself, generate a "new right."

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

As for the weapon analogy, its a rather flawed position. In practice the right of a human to live is the most basic right....

Yes, but the point of the analogy is to illustrate that creating a new device does not necessarily override the existing rights and laws.

To put it another way, it seems to me that Stallman's position that "we invented it, therefore it is permissible" fundamentally does not work.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

And how long do you suppose the Public will put up with Draconian enforcement when they all wish to do the activity involved?

Keep in mind that I am not defending severe copyright enforcement -- merely pointing out that the "ease of infringement" argument could easily be used to justify a variety of modifications to the methods of enforcement, including ones you do not support.

Now if the methods of enforcement used are illegal or unjust, you can critique them on that basis. But this does not necessarily indicate that the law itself is unjust and ought to be abolished.

E.g. if it is trivially easy to smoke marijuana, and difficult to enforce that law, this in and of itself does not mean that "we should make toking up legal." You need to determine other issues, such as "is marijuana harmful or harmless," or "are the risks of marijuana use within acceptable limits," and so forth as the basis for the legality of the substance.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I am not suggesting that violating copyright law is currently justified. However, if the Congress continues to listen only to the unbounded interests of media companies, it might ultimately be responsible for a major backlash against the media companies.

I'll buy that for a dollar. I also prefer non-DRM content, but to me DRM is more an annoyance than a massive injustice.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You're the one choosing my allies, apparently. I guess most of your allies are strawmen?

*sigh*

As I obviously attempted to clarify in my previous post: My earlier statement ("Logically, it does not make sense that an individual should be allowed to violate copyright laws solely because it is now technically possible and/or easy") is a characterization of the crux of Stallman's position -- you know, the guy whose article started this entire thread and who we've been discussing the whole time? It's not a "strawman" fallacy when you accurately describe and then critique an opponent's position.

So, feel free to refute Stallman's position, I don't mind. Just keep in mind that if you disagree with the above quoted statement, then you disagree with Stallman (and probably bill_mchale) on the fundamental reason for ignoring copyright restrictions with digital formats -- hence they are not necessarily your "allies."