I just spent 20 minutes typing a reply and the damned browser crashed. I am too tired to do it all again so I will just reply to a few points and attack the rest later.
"But, the only other thing I'd note is that your brain does not have RAM and a Hard Drive. Not yet. So I really don't see the point of that."
YES my brain most certainly does. Could not work without it actually. RAM is your short term memory and the hard disk is your long term memory. Same thing. One is biological while the other is metal and plastic. Thats all.
POINT IS that it can not be illegal to make a derivative copy or duplication because YOU DO THIS every time your read or listen to those words.
The law is intended to protect the right of the author to control distribution of his works. IE WHO SELLS IT (free or otherwise) to control the dissemination of that work.
When I COPY this work in my own home and go NO further with it I can NOT be violating the authors rights since its MY Property. NO dissemination of work has occurred I have had a null effect on the authors rights therfore NULL damages.
"I think from your following paragraphs you are suggesting that DRM was created to get around your "rights" as the physical owner of a book. All I can say is, again, one of us is certainly wrong under the law. And I hope we never have to find out which one of us is."
NO DRM by itself is worthless just crack it. DRM combined with the DMCA is what is used to get around our Property Rights.
"Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. And distribution has nothing to do with it. If you don't want the rights to the eBook, then don't buy it. If you do, then go ahead."
I think you meant to say if I dont want the RESTRICTIONS to the License? I am not entirely sure what you mean?
Distribution or dissemination is everything. Its the only thing they can restrict with law???
ITs not that I do not want the restrictions of the license its that I do not recognize any license as even existing. I never signed a contract and I do not recognize ASSUMED contracts where I have no say and usually neither does the law.
AFAIK the law does NOT stipulate any form of LICENSE when you buy a book etc.. The Media companies "claim" this is how it exists because that what they "meant" when they sold it to you.
What they MEAN and what REALLY IS are two different things.
What they MEAN is a license what REALLY IS is a book I OWN completely.
AGAIN show me the law that permits them to TAKE the book from me. IF there is no way for them to TAKE the lawfully purchased book from me then there is no LICENSE otherwise there would be a legal means for them to TAKE it from me for "violating" this mythical license.
IE no license. its Property plain and simple.
Come on get off the fair use thing. This has nothing to do with fair use I mentioned it when I mentioned copyright law so that no one could yell at me for not mentioning it.
Fair use ONLY comes into play when IPR is involved. ie when I actually want to USE the IP of an author and DISSEMINATE that information some how (news cast review parody whatever)
When IPR is not involved there is no infringement and no defense needed SUCH AS what you do in your own home.
I Do not really need to understand copyright law. I only need to know WHAT IT APPLIES TO. (thats why I wanted you to read it)
Since my activity NEVER INVOKES copyright issues its irrelevant. THAT was the reason for mentioning IE the part I claimed you did not understand.
"They are protected under different laws, by different governmental bodies, for different reasons, and with different case law behind them."
The concepts AS I STATED are identical. They are only different in so far as one deals with MATTER and one deals with THOUGHT
AS I STATED copyright covers the IP in the words on the page and PATENT covers the IP in the binding of the book.
They are BOTH the same for the relevant portions of OUR discussion. IPR and PPR.
You are VIOLATING BOTH for doing the EXACT SAME THINGS !! Dupes Derivis disseminated without original IP owners permission in whole or in part.
"Interesting. At the risk of yet one more irrelevancy, do you have the right to tell an airport guard you have a bomb? And then tell him or her you are only kidding?"
you already know the answer to this question. ABSOLUTELY it is your right to tell the guard you have a bomb. the 1st amendment ASSURES THAT. what the 1st amendment DOES NOT DO is absolve you of RESPONSIBILITY for the results that occur from your usage of that right.
Whatever law can get you arrested for using the word BOMB in an airport (it does not even have to be directed at a guard to get you in trouble just uttering it is enough)
IF it makes the actual speech illegal the law is ILLEGAL AND INVALID
IF it PROPERLY makes the potential RESULT of uttering that word illegal then it is perfectly OK constitutional and JUST.
IE saying the word BOMB in the wrong manner in an airport is AKIN to saying FIRE in a theatre. it can cause a panic and get people HURT. This is and SHOULD be illegal. but its not the WORD thats illegal its the RESULTS OF USING THAT WORD on the people around you that is illegal. IE yelling bom saying I have a bomb. Holding up a picture of a bomb would all be illegal under this rule and RIGHTLY SO in an airport :-)
THE ONLY exception to the 1st amendment is RIGHT IN the constitution IE a credible threat on the president is illegal but even there its the THREAT thats illegal not really the speech itself.
"Why is there any difference?" (regarding open carrying a weapon)
Your kidding right? ONE holds ZERO risk to me the other would likely get me SHOT or at the minimum ARRESTED.
I would have to actually CHECK the laws in manhatten. it many locals they illegally ban weapons. but in MANY locals where a CCP is required (illegally I might add) without these illegal laws it is perfectly legal for you to done a holster and six shooter and walk down main street. its when you CONCEAL it that a permit becomes required. Do a googling on Open Carrying.
"No insult taken. Few people seem to realize that the "Laughing" part comes first, or that a LaughingVulcan is usually a contradiction."
I noted it but the fact that you used the word vulcan and your image indicated a start trek connection implied you are aware of the word logic and its meaning and therefore should have seen the grievous logical error you made in your example :-) thats all I just found it funny :-)
"All I was noting was, as you have somewhat affirmed, rights have their limits."
No they do not. Privileges have limitations rights do not. There is no such thing as a LIMITED right (I am using the word RIGHT as in RIGHTS such as free speech IE inalienable any right that can be taken away is NOT a right its a privilege)
ANY limit to a RIGHT is an invitation to ELIMINATION of that right.
that is why the first few amendments state very clearly. Congress Shall Make NO LAW respecting etc.. etc..
The founding fathers knew very well Rights are intrinsic. They are all or nothing. there is no grey.
THAT is why you can not make it illegal (constitutionally) to say fire in a theater but CAN make it illegal to cause a panic.
The result in law is the same without violating the 1st amendment. IE the proper law compels RESPONSIBILITY on you for exercising your rights to the ill will of your fellow citizens. AS IT SHOULD.
Freedom does not mean no responsibility. people sometimes forget this :-)
My point about your logical failing was you stated TWO SEPARATE THINGS
Mentioned that point #2 was illegal and therfore point #1 was also illegal as if they were the same thing while they are NOT and you should know this.
Under NO law is making a fist illegal. Show me one? Making a FIST is NOT the same thing as HITTING YOU regardless of HOW I hit you (fist or pipe)
Its not the making of the fist that was illegal it was the HITTING YOU WITH IT that was illegal.
You made the logical mistake and combined the two separate actions into one and tried to use this incorrect combination and the laws making it illegal to hit you to justify saying it was illegal to make a fist.
IE logical flaw.
Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/