|
I'm glad you believe you're right. Don't be surprised when society believes you are wrong and proves it by enforcing its will on you. I just hope you feel equally satisfied when you are broke and/or in jail.
-------------------------
That is a risk I take and I understand this. Just like so many people in history who took similar risk (MUCH greater risks than I take) for what they KNOW is right and for what "the people" wish to impose on you with there will. In the end they usually win (there cause at least) because as with this case its almost always the MINORITY with the MAJORITY POWER trying to impose there will. EXPLAIN the DMCA in terms a lay person can understand and then go find me ONE normal american who things that law is legitimte. A law that says You can not mess with your own PROPERTY and make sure you convert it to terms that properly describe it. You may not change the wheels on your car unless there FROM the people who MADE the car no matter what they wish to charge or conditions they wish to impose. You may not let a friend drive your car OR drive on any roads the automaker does not approve of.
A law that says in the end if the manfacturer decides to STOP supporting your product and LITERALLY turns your property off YOUR NOT allowed to do ANYTHING ABOUT IT not even TALK about it with other people in text or verbally. Your ONLY option is to GO PAY AGAIN for what you already purchased.
Find me ONE normal citizen without a vested interest in such condition who will say Thats ok with me.
These laws have NOTHING to do with the will of the people. ONLY the will of a FEW with the money and power and you think I should just BOW down to them just because??
The supreme court has already confirmed the constitution is EXPLICIT NOT implied. This means it has no implicit powers only EXPLICIT powers. IT does not need to say I do not have to pay it simply has to not say I need to which it does not. A reasonable fee is NOT the same thing as the MANY YEARS wages most lawyers would charge for a larger case.
----------------
Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that a reasonable fee can not be charged if you can afford it? To save you some effort... you won't find that in there.
---------------
Thats just it. I do not have to show you. YOU have to show me. EXPLICIT not IMPLICIT is the law. and again more money than the average person makes in several YEARS is NOT something we can afford and NOT reasonable.
BUT just to play a little of this game I believe I can in fact SHOW how the constitution forbids this. First it needs to be understood that when the constitution forbids something it does not have to be LAW to be forbidden
Example. Free Speech. Congress can make no law regarding the right to free speech. This also mens they can not DO anything to infringe free speech whether they codify it in law or simply "state it" So if a government official or police officer infringes on your right to free speech he is violating the first amendment even if its policy and not law to do what he is doing. With that clear
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This clearly states no law prohibition or abridgment of my right to petition the government for redress of grievances is permitted. NONE of any kind. its pretty explicity NO law NO prohibition NO abridgment. Not some not sometimes just NO. does not get much clearer.
This means ANY means to STOP me from doing this. Pay this fee you can not afford. You have to have a lawyer you can not afford. You have to goto school for 4 years and pay 10 times that lawyer fee you already can not afford educating yourself on the law so you do not need a lawyer or EFFECTIVELY requiring you to need a lawyer if your petition has any chance of going anywhere even if not DIRECTLY requiring it is therfore a DIRECT violation of my 1st amendment rights.
So not only have I hopefully educated you a little on the constitution and how it works but I EVEN managed to find your constitution proof you requested even though I did not need to at all (Explicit not Implicit)
Commercial Publishers have no rights. None whatsoever. They do not even have a copyright right. They have a TEMPORARY Privilege granted by the government to foster a balance between OUR rights there rights and innovation. You clearly have no conception over the difference between corporate rights corporate privileges. You clearly have no conception of the ORIGINAL INTENT of copyright law.
As for akin to government. I disagree you may be right legally but not morally. they are agents of the state to me AND the constitution applies regardless. WE ALL must abide by the constitution not just government.
"isn't an "illegal law" a contradiction in terms, by the way? No law can be illegal."
Your kidding right? if that were the case the supreme could not hear cases to determine the "legality" ie constitutionality of a law and strike it down if it fails.
The law did not "become" unconstitutional (and therfore illegal) at the moment the supreme court discovers it. IT was ALWAYS SO from inception.
Note my wording. The supreme court can not technically DECLARE a law unconstitutional. They simply DISCOVER after examination that said law is and always was ILLEGAL.
|