When is Sony's DRM going to be broken?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by LaughingVulcan

I'm not saying that there is a "God-given right" to it. But I am saying that it is frustrating to own a paper book and not have any legal method to enjoy it electronically.

I was actually quoting you, LV. You said in your previous post:

I think that if you own a paper book, you should have the right to have an eCopy of it.

I can appreciate that you might like an eBook; what I was wondering is why you felt that you had (in your own words) a right to an e-Book? I too very much prefer to read eBooks to paper books these days, but I don't expect the publisher to provide me with one free of charge.

[junkml]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because, as I explained in the previous message, when you cut down a trade paperback you are doing nothing other than physically altering the medium - the paper - and you own that; you can do whatever you want to it.

When you convert a file format, you're creating a NEW file - a "derived work". At the end of the process, you have two files; the old and the new.

As I said, nobody's going to prosecute you for doing this, but it's akin to, say, photocopying a book. You're creating a second copy in the process, which you don't have the right to redistribute. You can, on the other hand, freely give away or re-sell your cut-down paper book.

I wasn't going to get into this discussion, but I have a question about your opinion about converting from one format to another.

Format shifting has been accepted as fair use here in the states for a few decades now. So, when people would shift formats from Vinyl to Cassette, or even CD to cassette, they were creating a new copy of a song. Again, this has been accepted as fair use in the states for quite some time.

Why should the rules change for a file on an electronic device? Whether digital or analog, a new copy exists. Why is it okay for analog, but not digital? (assuming that it is done for private use, not for distribution)

[Nate the great]

Why do you keep bringing up their desire to make a profit? It is irrelevant here. Why are you suggesting that I have an obligation to guarantee them a profit?

Originally Posted by LaughingVulcan

...

Now why should you go out and buy it again? Because the state of the publishing industry depends upon publication rights being sold again and again. It's part of the system. The author's income isn't derived solely from typing into the night. It's also derived from the author being smart enough to sell those rights incrementally. First publishing right. Serialization. Magazine version. Hardback. Paperback. Special edition. eBook. Translation. Audiobook. TV rights. Movie rights. Each of these has a value that (hopefully) enrich the author separately.

...

The other aspect, though, is that the file format system itself involves different revenue streams. Who wins if you make an eCopy of something into lit? You do, of course. But also Microsoft - you have used their format. You have the ability to show off to friends how nice your version of Mr. Goodwriter's book looks. You (presumably) have the ability to take a screenshot of it and post it to your blog.

Now, if Mr. Goodwriter wants to make his living by limiting himself to Sony, that's his choice as the author. (In fact, Mr. Goodwriter might object simply to your converting it to a format whose DRM is broken, thus allowing for the possibility of filesharing.)

Do I think that the publisher and author should enjoy the right to determine when, how, and if a book is released to electronic format? I'm undecided. I don't like it, but I can see how it matters to them economically.

I disagree on the point of format choice. I think the publisher and author have just as much right to pick the electronic format as the paper format. They can choose between Sony, Mobipocket, and MSReader just like they can choose between hardback, trade and mass market paperback.

But once they choose a format and publish the content, they have released it into the wild. They have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do to a pbook. What I can do to the pbook is limited by copyright law, not the publisher. I think it's logical to extend existing law about your rights over a pbook to an ebook.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by junkml

I wasn't going to get into this discussion, but I have a question about your opinion about converting from one format to another.

Format shifting has been accepted as fair use here in the states for a few decades now. So, when people would shift formats from Vinyl to Cassette, or even CD to cassette, they were creating a new copy of a song. Again, this has been accepted as fair use in the states for quite some time.

Why should the rules change for a file on an electronic device? Whether digital or analog, a new copy exists. Why is it okay for analog, but not digital? (assuming that it is done for private use, not for distribution)

I'm sure that it is accepted as bring OK for private use. The original question (quite a way back now) was whether one could change the format of an eBook in order to re-sell it to someone. That's what I'm saying you can't do, any more than you can, say, buy a commercial music CD, copy it to cassette, and then sell someone that cassette.

Format shifting for private use I have absolutely no issues with whatsoever. From a purely practical viewpoint, any laws "prohibiting" it would be completely unenforcable.

[junkml]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sure that it is accepted as bring OK for private use. The original question (quite a way back now) was whether one could change the format of an eBook in order to re-sell it to someone. That's what I'm saying you can't do, any more than you can, say, buy a commercial music CD, copy it to cassette, and then sell someone that cassette.

Format shifting for private use I have absolutely no issues with whatsoever. From a purely practical viewpoint, any laws "prohibiting" it would be completely unenforcable.

Cool, I was just beginning to get the impression that you were opposed to any type of format shifting, period. Re-selling is, of course, a separate issue.

[LaughingVulcan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I was actually quoting you, LV. You said in your previous post:



I can appreciate that you might like an eBook; what I was wondering is why you felt that you had (in your own words) a right to an e-Book? I too very much prefer to read eBooks to paper books these days, but I don't expect the publisher to provide me with one free of charge.

Perhaps I should clarify: I think a person should have the right to be in possession of an eCopy of a bound book he or she has purchased at retail. That may entail satisfying the holder(s) of copyright. I didn't mean to imply that the publisher has to publish an eBook; it would be enough to allow possession of an eCopy without fear of some RIAA-like entity coming after the possessor.

In other threads I said I wouldn't mind paying a buck or two for secure format conversion (to another secure format,) if the method was legal. I also wouldn't mind paying a buck or two to the copyright holder to simply receive an acknowledgment that I may be in possession of an eCopy of said work for personal use. I don't think that's really workable, but it's one method.

What I'm getting at is that I don't think it should be a civil or criminal offense to have an eCopy of a favorite work that the publisher and author have already received compensation for. While I acknowledge you may disagree with me, and that's OK, I can't see any justification in the law for this currently. Maybe nobody will come after the eBook enthusiast, but I'd rather see the ability enshrined as the DAT makers or Betamax home tapers have protection.

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Why do you keep bringing up their desire to make a profit? It is irrelevant here. Why are you suggesting that I have an obligation to guarantee them a profit?

Because they deserve to be paid for their work. "Profit" is a matter of revenue exceeding cost. They (a publisher, author, or other copyright holder) can make more money than they spend or go bankrupt. They can offer their work at no cost whatsoever or charge one million dollars a copy. Hey, wanna buy my novel? I only have to sell one...

Me, I appreciate the work that published authors have to go through to bring me a bit of entertainment and/or knowledge.

But it really comes down to the simple fact that the copyright holder has the right to choose when, where, and how a work is published. Not you or I.

Would I like to have the ability to get all of my eReader books over to my Reader? Sure! But I don't want the publishing industry (or my favorite authors) to face financial distress in so doing, because the industry is the way it has been. The entertainment industry in general has long had the ability to discriminate in how a work is published, by virtue of specifying which copy rights are granted in a particular contract. It isn't fit that this should change because copying just became immensely easier.

Can the industry economics change? Of course it can. It is. But the moral and legal answer, to me, isn't "Hey, let me retype that whole novel up and load it in. The author doesn't need my money. The author doesn't need all his or her rights as afforded by copyright. The poor beggar should be grateful for whatever crust I deem is appropriate."

I disagree on the point of format choice. I think the publisher and author have just as much right to pick the electronic format as the paper format. They can choose between Sony, Mobipocket, and MSReader just like they can choose between hardback, trade and mass market paperback.

But once they choose a format and publish the content, they have released it into the wild. They have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do to a pbook. What I can do to the pbook is limited by copyright law, not the publisher. I think it's logical to extend existing law about your rights over a pbook to an ebook.

OK, but the publisher and author do have the choice about the paper format. Can they tell you "what to do" with the pbook? Well, like I've said, they can say you cannot make a photocopy of your book.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sure that it is accepted as bring OK for private use. The original question (quite a way back now) was whether one could change the format of an eBook in order to re-sell it to someone. That's what I'm saying you can't do, any more than you can, say, buy a commercial music CD, copy it to cassette, and then sell someone that cassette.

Format shifting for private use I have absolutely no issues with whatsoever. From a purely practical viewpoint, any laws "prohibiting" it would be completely unenforcable.

It could well be considered a trifle by the law....
True, that was the question that sparked this off. But the thread question is "When is Sony's DRM going to be broken?" And the DMCA made breaking DRM very different the issue of from converting a file format.



As to "Fair Use" and audio recordings: Audio recordings are specifically addressed in a couple of different places in Title 17. They are recognized as being distinct from other forms of media. Is there a parallel? Possibly. But I would bet the store on it.

Whether Fair Use applies as a defense to infringement is also very dependent upon the individual case involved. What is and isn't fair use changes almost like the wind. I'm not sure whether or not it would constitute a defense against format conversion or not. It won't against violating DRM, IMVHO. But I'm glad that I'm not a lawyer, on either side.

[nerys]

Ok well so far your not acting like a troll so I will continue. I ENJOY discussions especially stimulating discussions. Even more so discussions that could eventually lead to education and better understanding and eventually Proper change in society.

Note if it turns nasty I am gone. I won't leave in admission of defeat or any such crap but I will leave to prevent this from turning into a flame war.

I have some ground rules that I follow and would appreciate others following as well you are off course free not to but I may also stop talking to you. Repeating myself over and over again gets tedious. IE do not ignore points I make. If you disagree with a point STAY ON POINT. DO not say no 2+2=4 is wrong and then provide something irrelevant like 2=3+5 see your wrong???? ie apples to oranges. I promise to do the same with you if I have not already replied to a point you make. If you repeat a point I already replied to I will simply direct you to read the previous posts as you should have already :-)

Not a demand. its just how I work and would appreciate a return of this common courtesy.

So onward and forward.

"Perhaps I have understand exactly everything you have said, and you have misunderstood me"

Thats the problem. Logic says the kind of reply you gave having no comparison or relevance whatsoever and in fact being a VERY limited and specific example DESIGNED to clearly not comply with my reasoning was chosen for just that reason.

Instead of the logical all lights issue you provided one specific extremely limited "emergency lights" example (which I happen to disagree with but thats another issue)

IE telling me I can not put red and blue lights on my car because it would look like a cop car bears NO logical or even illogical valid comparison to FORD telling me no blue or red lights JUST because they do not like me putting blue or red lights on my car.

I am not talking about the law. I am talking about DICTATES of manufacturers AND laws specifically DESIGNED by manufacturers (DMCA). a VALID SAFETY issue has nothing to do with a GREED/CONTROL issue. YOU know this yet you chose to provide your police lights example. HOW precisely am I supposed to react to that? :-)

"Actually I was talking about the enforcement of the law."

Therein lies the problem. Do not take this the wrong way but what you want to talk about is meaningless to me in this specific context. Want to talk about that FINE do so but thats not what you did. you FORMATTED what you wanted to talk about as if it was a valid REBUTTAL and REPLY to what I was talking about IE the law being wrong and personal property rights.

You can not "legitimately" alter the context of the discussion and then presume because your altered context is correct even though it has nothing to do with my statement that it constitutes a valid rebuttal to my statement ???

THATS why I got upset. Your entire reply appeared to come across as exactly that kind of thing IE your ignores all my comments yet you were clearly REPLYING to all my comments :-)

"As long as those tires were manufactured according to product safety standards"

Again irrelevant. TIRES needs to have safety standards. NO ONE with half a brain will disagree with this. ALSO its not the MANUFACTURER dictating these limitations its the LAW (regardless of the manufacturer this is important) dictating this for a GOOD JUST LOGICAL VALID REASON. ie disobeying it means people DIE.

Last time I checked there are no logical SAFETY issues with books and no one DIES if I print a book on red paper instead of white paper.

So again it was an irrelevant illogical comparison. Hence why I got upset :-)

"You check out a library book. You do not own the content. You do not have the right to go to Kinko's and photocopy the contents of the book, put it in a binder, and put it on a shelf."

No the apples to oranges is your issue here. YOUR the one that brought this up when you stated "your reading it without paying for it" in one of your posts.

SO I replied with OTHER INSTANCES of reading it without paying for it. THIS was not "my" thought process it was YOURS which I replied to :-) I never conveyed an opinion of "ownership" regarding this. JUST wanted to show the fallacy of the statement but your reading it without paying for it.

"The same applies if you borrow a book from your friend: It does not give you license to photocopy it. It does not even give you a right to take a paper and pencil and rewrite the whole thing on graph paper because you want to change the format of it."

But it also does not say I can not. It can NOT in fact deny me this right otherwise the transcription that occurs when I READ it into my RAM (thats my brain) and my Hard Disk (my long term memory) would also HAVE to be illegal.

THE ENTIRE intent of copyright law applies SOLELY to "distribution" Do you know how and why copyright law was created?

Player Piano's IIRC. They would BUY sheet music transcribe this to player piano paper (no problem) but then mass produce and sell these player piano strips.

See now? its not the transformation thats the problem its the DISTRIBUTION thats the problem. I can and SHOULD be able to do anything I want with that sheet music for my own uses. According to your strict interpretation of what you think the law says if I buy Piano sheet music and play it with my Guitar I am breaking the law? I am somehow violating the authors rights?

NOW if I convert that to better guitar sheet and then DISTRIBUTE IT well NOT I am legitimately violating the authors rights.

If I buy 10 sheets Convert it to guitar and then give or sell those 10 sheets of my guitar and INCLUDE the original purchased 10 sheets of piano. Well This gets grey. on one hand a legally purchased copy of the original is going with each derivative so no "new work" is generated (legally) but I am also now PROFITING from the authors work above and beyond the original purchase. I do not know how the LAW handles this but personally for free no problem for profit is a problem (to me) Copyright law DOES allow for conversion of media and it DOES permit you to PAY someone to do it for you. Like I said GREY and off the track of this discussion :-)

"In either case, the only "right" you have is to copy and/or republish a limited portion of the book for certain specific purposes as outlined in fair use doctrine."

I disagree. I consider Copyright law to be a non issue. As long as its for my own personal private use I consider the law to be moot ie inapplicable. It does not "activate" until its non personal because anything personal does NOT infringe on Intellectual Property Rights which is the ONLY time copyright comes into play at all.

IE until you violate intellectual property rights copyright is moot and therefore can not render the act illegal.

When your at the library the law applies because there IS NO PPR (personal Property rights) at play so its ALL IPR (intellectual property rights)

Once I BUY the book though IPR is irrelevant and moot. (unless it goes non personal ie I try to distribute it)

Technically if I "mark up" the pages of the book I am physically altering the content of that book. TO you this is illegal? to me this is perfectly legal its MY BOOK and that ONE COPY of the content is my property. I do not own the IPR to those words but I DO OWN the PPR to those words.

"Aside from the issues relating to the DMCA which clearly says you are wrong if you circumvent the DRM"

Actually it does not matter if the DMCA says I am wrong first its not law second PRIOR LAW trumps the DMCA since no where in the DMCA was the prior law repealed so the prior law is STILL IN EFFECT.

I also believe (and I do believe if it ever does get to court which it will not this will be upheld) that the DMCA does not apply to PPR only IPR which created another conundrum that we can get into later with people writing "ripping" software)

As for invading there capital. Not my problem. Its only an invasion in there capital if I violate IPR ie I make this new copy and then DISTRIBUTE IT. otherwise its PPR and none of the manufacturers business nor the governments and 100% unenforceable.

"In addition, the publisher has the right for the work to appear in the format they have determined it should be published in."

Actually no they do not otherwise deaf people or partially blind people etc.. would be criminals. I AS OWNER of said content have the right to VIEW that content in ANY means or format or medium I so desire. They KNOW this and they also know there is NO WAY they can make a law that makes it illegal.

SO they did an "end run" around these rights by slyly getting a DRM law passed and then conveniently applying DRM to absolutely everything. IE I still have the RIGHT (in law) to convert that book or dvd or game to any format I want but to DO THIS I have to crack the encryption and a SEPERATE law makes THAT ACT illegal.

the DMCA DOES NOT MAKE it illegal to convert an ebook from LRF to TXT and NEITHER DOES copyright law. This is a PERFECTLY LEGAL act.

The DMCA makes it illegal to CRACK the encryption on the LRF that is STOPPING me from doing the conversion that I am legally allowed to do to make it a TXT file.

IE they are VIOLATING MY RIGHTS by applying DRM. One might say well buy a version that is NOT DRM's well thats not possible as all versions are DRM'd now :-) see what I mean?

"So, by your effort of conversion, you have denied the possibility of a royalty for that author."

Irrelevant and not my problem ALSO your asking the wrong question here so to speak.

The problem was not the conversion with typos. THAT IS LEGAL. The problem is the sharing with my friend. THAT is not so legal in most cases. IE I have now changed from Converting under PPR to DISTRIBUTING under IPR

BUT I believe fair use permits this so its still not my problem. Promotion of his work is the authors problem not mine.

"Now, six months later, Mr. Goodwriter needs to pay for his garage. So he resells the rights (because his contract with Sony allows it,) to Microsoft. Microsoft releases a LIT version. But, of course, you owned the Sony version. Mr. Goodwriter doesn't need a new garage anyway. He doesn't need your money, right?"

Thats Mr Goodwriters problem buddy. Releasing on new formats is NOT intended to sell to me (I already bought it) its intended to sell to those that DID NOT WANT the book version and NOW WANT the electronic version and are NOW WILLING to purcahse it

Your logic is so entirely flawed it really is almost laughable. I mean its almost like you LITERALLY MEAN that I am somehow DEPRIVING the author of legitimate profits if I buy his book and decide NOT to buy the 2nd edition because I already have the first edition.

Are you serious?? Your joking right? your logic is completely flawed. IT ONLY WORKS if I DISTRIBUTED that LIT version so all the lit user now have no reason to buy it.

Well we are not talking about distribution WHICH IS NOT LAWFUL. We are talking personal singular conversion. he has NO RIGHT to compel me to buy his book over and over again in new version. IN FACT copyright law was written SPECIFICALLY to prevent this thats why I AM ALLOWED to convert my VHS to DVD and my DVD to BLU RAY if I so desire. (not counting copy protection which is a separate issue from copyright law)

I have the RIGHT to enjoy my purchase in any medium I desire. His decision to not release it in all formats first well thats his problem not mine. The law backs me up on this. the media corps are TRYING to do an end run around these laws protecting me with the DMCA and DRM hence why its illegal and wrong.

"Do you have the right to get out your old Smith-Corona manual and retype the whole thing?"

YES as a matter of fact I DO have that right. Please go read some copyright law and fair use law.

"Here lies the difference between Copyright, Patent, and Trademark"

WHAT ?? do you even know what those words mean?? copyright and patent are EXACTLY the same things.

Copyright applies to "soft" ware and patent applies to "hard" ware.

For example you can have a copyright to the SOFTWARE in the book and a PATENT to the hardware in the binding. they are the SAME thing when you boil it down and THEY ARE IN FACT how I PROVE MY POINT and DISPROVE your point.

When you buy say a watch. If I am to accept your point of view its illegal for me to cut the band into a different shape. Or make a mold of the band duplicate it and make it longer to fit my wrist (all or which are perfectly legal)

BUT if I were to SELL these longer duplicated bands NOW I am distributing NOW I am violating his patent.

Comparing patent to copyright BACKS ME UP not the other way around.

Trademark is completely different and not really comparable to copyright or patent. That has to do with name recognition.

"you should have the right to have an eCopy of it." well this we may disagree on. I do not thin the author is under ANY obligation to provide me with an ebook version. but IT IS my right to MAKE or ACQUIRE an ebook version if I own the hard version.

"I think you should have all these rights. But, if the law as it is specifically prohibits that course of action, then that is what the law is. Talking about civil disobedience is fine. If you're right you will indeed succeed. And if you're wrong.... well, what's that worth to you?"

Thats the difference between sheeple and patriots. (NO I am not trying to insult you) Whats it worth to me? everything. Wrong question. Whats the RISK to me? thats the right question.

The answer? NONE. there is virtually NO risk at all. UNLESS I try to distribute it. but again thats another discussion and I made clear distribution of derived works is WRONG

"Until it is overturned, it is the law."

NO until it is overturned, it is ENFORCED (again separation of legal and enforced)

If a law is illegal it was ALWAYS illegal.

"But please show me any action in which, "I don't buy it because it doesn't fit my moral compass," has been successfully employed as a defense"

Reading it at the library. There thats your example. I read it at the library and then decide NOT to buy it. I broke what law exactly?

"And I do know how freedom works. It is not free. Nor is it unlimited." actually thats not true its as limited as we permit it. The Ultimate in freedom is anarchy which I happen to think it a bad idea.

My concept of freedom is simple. IF it does not violate anyone else's rights it should be MY RIGHT and inalienable.

Converting a book as many times as I want in any format as I want in anyway I want violates NO ONE ELSE's rights.

DISTRIBUTING that book DOES.

Very simple. problem is GREED requires that you INFRINGE on others rights. IE control.

""I can shout fire in a crowded theatre,""

and doing so is YOUR RIGHT and can NOT be taken from you (please read the first amendment)

any law saying you can NOT yell fire in a theatre is ILLEGAL and UNENFORCEABLE

what the law SHOULD say is its illegal to cause a panic or potential panic in a theater REGARDLESS of how you do this. Same effect without violating the first amendment.

So the illegal act is NOT yelling fire. its causing a PANIC or POTENTIAL PANIC that fact that you yelled fire to do this is not relevant. I am pretty sure the supreme court already shot this down or at least they should have I will have to look into it. but you get my point.

Actually YOU CAN walk down main street with a sixgun on your hip. ANY law saying otherwise is illegal (NO I would not openly challenge it without proper preparation as the risk is too high) in fact in MANY states it is PERFECTLY legal to carry a weapon. its carrying a CONCEALED weapon that you need a permit for :-)

"Your right to make a fist ends at the moment it swings towards my nose and I reasonably believe you are throwing a punch."

LaughingVulcan. Come on man you have VULCAN in your name for christs sake this should mean you know SOMETHING about the word LOGIC. I am not trying to insult yo I just laughed when I read your illogical quote above and then noted your name :-)

You describe two acts. MAKING A FIST and THREATENING YOU WITH IT.

These are SEPARATE and UNRELATED. ONE is legal the other is not.

IT IS NEVER illegal to make a fist. it is almost ALWAYS illegal to HIT YOU with that fist with intent to harm you.

EVEN IN SELF DEFENSE its illegal its just EXCUSED as just cause.

Come on man. apples orange. You make one statement and then rebutt it with something unrelated. Making a fist and USING that fist are two completely different things. You can not use the SECOND to justify a claim against the first.

"Then, as I said, run for office and become one who changes it. If you can. Or back someone who will do what you feel is right."

But this will not work. The system is broken. the LAST avenue to fix this system is mass defiance by the people.

Too many of the politicians are paid for to cause me BECOMING one to have any effect. and I would have to be decieptful since if they KNEW I was going to do this kind of thing and had a chance in hell of getting in they would USE there considerable power to keep me out (out of debates smear campaign etc.. etc..)

Its too late for the political approach that oppurtunity passed 50-70 years ago. Now its gone. Now its a people issue.

"But your moral compass is not the law. The law is. "

but OUR moral compass DEFINES the law. FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE. NOT for the law by the law.

The problem is we as a people ARE CHOOSING not to IMPOSE our moral compass (sheeple) we just sit back and do nothing till its too late.

"But, still, you cannot incite to riot and claim that it's your free speech to do so."

I am sorry you once again are talking about two different things. FREE SPEECH and RIOTS are two different things.

I am free to say anything I want. I AM NOT FREE to incite a RIOT. it does not matter HOW I incite that riot (thats what I am trying to get across to you)

ANY law that says you can not say things to incite a riot is ILLEGAL any law that says you can not cause a RIOT regardless of how you cause it IS LEGAL.

ANY supreme court ruling that violates the constitution is ALSO MOOT and ILLEGAL. again the supreme court can not DECLARE something legal or illegal. They can only interpret the law and DISCOVER something is legal or illegal. the difference is semantic at first look but SO critical.

"Can I walk into your home and make you turn down your stereo which is playing too loudly? No. Can I call the police, and have them make you turn down your radio? Yes."

Semantic. YOU made me turn it down, this is clear in law. Just because I hire a gunmen to kill someone does not absolve me of the murder which I CAUSE regardless of how I caused it.

And again apples to oranges. there is a difference between SAFETY or DECENCY or REASONABLY VALID laws that have a GOOD JUST purpose compelling me to do something a certain way.

WAY DIFFERENT than a CORPORATION dictating terms for no other reason except to further line there pockets with MY money.

YOU FAIL to comprehend this SIGNIFICANT difference over and over again. YOU CAN NOT legitimately compare the LAW compelling me verse CORPORATIONS compelling me.

"Can I stop you from mounting a spotlight with a bat on the roof of your house? No. Does that give you the right to shine it straight up into the air? Not if you live in my neighborhood, which is an exit corridor for our local airport."

Again your comparing THOUSAND OF TONS OF FUEL AND METAL CRASHING IN A AREA OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE with me CONVERTING A BOOK that a corporation does not want me to.

CAN YOU POSSIBLY get more apples to oranges ???

If you can SHOW ME how copying that book can endanger THOUSANDS of people and BILLIONS of dollars in property FINE then it should be illegal in THAT specific situation.

"Can Microsoft corporation walk into your house and unplug your computer because you decide to break a LIT book and convert it to unencrypted PDF? No."

Wanna BET ??? ask people who's computers have SHUT DOWN and NO LONGER OPERATE because the update sever installed by Microsoft AGAINST my will has "decided" that this copy of windows in invalid and deactivated it.

Ask the GOOGLE VIDEO purchasers who have videos that in the coming weeks if not already will NEVER PLAY AGAIN because google has "switched them off" remotely. EVEN THOUGH you purchased it.

YOU DO realize that apple can TURN OFF all your music if they decide to and you sync to itunes after they have done this? you do realize this right?

MAN oh man you do need to get updated on current technology issues.

How about sony installing a BACK DOOR into your computer allowing them to SPY on you literally JUST by playing a CD and OH YEAH if you NOTICE THIS and click NO I disagree to the installation GUESS WHAT it got installed ANYWAY.

PLEASE read up on current news on technology.

Microsoft can LITERALLY walk into my home electronically and UNPLUG my computer effectively if they want. WELL not mine thats why I run hacked copies of windows.

What about you?

Edited to Add: Are legal and enforceable two different things? Of course they are. Are all laws enforceable? No. Are all laws "legal"? Until they are overturned. That simple.

66% correct. an illegal law is and always was illegal. anyone convicted of that law is retroactively freed and "unconvicted"

It is not declared illegal it is DISCOVERED to be illegal and therefore was illegal from the first moment it was created. it just took that long for them to discover it.

Keep it coming but PLEASE actually read my comments. My words are not up for interpretation. PLEASE do not interpret them I mean what I say nothing more nothign less I do not use "hidden meanings" there is nothing between my lines :-) If something is unclear then I FAILED at writing it please ask for clarification.

I spent over 2.5 HOURS typing this. Thats a lot of work and a lot of energy on my part. IF your going to bother to reply I would APPRECIATE it if you reply seriously and with honest intent and don't play "games" just because you may or may not like what I have to say.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

[nerys]

"Read the first page of virtually any printed book and you'll find a sentence in it specifically prohibiting the reproduction of that book by any means or in any form. Buying a paper book does not give you some "God-given right" to create or download an eBook, any more than buying a hardback gives you a "right" to a paperback."

Just because that what is says does not mean it is valid or enforceable. Rights can not be taken from you just because the author "says so"

He has to comply with law as well including respecting my rights.

I believe that sentence is restricted by copyright law which is also restricted to Intellectual Property Rights.

COPYING a book does not violate his intellectual property rights so that law does not apply. DISTRIBUTING that copy (1 or 1million) DOES and therefore applies.

SO YES if you buy a book your welcome to toss it on a copy machine and "zerox" away. just so long as you KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF unless the law allows.

Your welcome to handwrite a copy. Your welcome to scan and OCR it. and if I read Fair Use law correctly your even allowed to hand that book to a friend or pay a company and say make this into an ebook for me. (which would make DOWNLOADING a copy legal but UPLOADING illegal)

I do NOT have a right to demand an ebook from the author (I can ask and he can charge for it if he wants) but it DO have the right to GET ONE for myself by converting the legal copy I do have.

I do not need the authors permission and his "restriction" in the beginning of the book is non binding in this scenario.

KNOW your rights or forever lose them.

Media corps KNOW THIS and they also know they can not CHALLENGE these rights without exposing OH YEAH you do have the right to do this. SO they are trying to BYPASS these right NOT by making it illegal to transcode the book. but by applying DRM to the book and making it illegal to BYPASS that DRM EFFECTIVELY BLOCKING you from making the perfectly legal transcoding. Actually you are STILL allowed to bypass the encryption if you CODE the means to do it yourself and never share it with anyone else and THEY KNOW average joe will never be capable of doing this.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by nerys

Ok well so far your not acting like a troll so I will continue. I ENJOY discussions especially stimulating discussions. Even more so discussions that could eventually lead to education and better understanding and eventually Proper change in society.

Note if it turns nasty I am gone. I won't leave in admission of defeat or any such crap but I will leave to prevent this from turning into a flame war.

We don't much abide trolls around here, and we tend to be pretty flame resistant, that is to say we resist letting flames get very far.

MobileRead is a pretty unique on-line community, in my experience, most of them are pretty nasty in a snake-pit sort of way. But folks around here are generally pretty courteous to one another here, and we try very hard to encourage that and discourage anything else. That's the primary reason I didn't give up on it after a month or so, like I have every other forum I've encountered.

That being said, nobody says anybody has to agree with anyone about anything (not even arithmetic ), but as I said, we do expect respectful disagreement. It's nice when we do agree, of course, but differences in perspective and point of view make for interesting and informative discussions. I find I often learn more from those I disagree with, than from those I agree with entirely.

So, everybody, be nice when you disagree, and when you can, try to learn something from what the other guy has to say, even the "other guys" who are wacked in the head.

That's my public service announcement for the day.

[nerys]

"I'm sure that it is accepted as bring OK for private use. The original question (quite a way back now) was whether one could change the format of an eBook in order to re-sell it to someone."

I am sorry HarryT I could be wrong but at least from MY position this is irrelevant. THERE IS NO QUESTION Morally or Legally that converting to another format and reselling (even just COPYING and reselling) it absolutely illegal and rightly so.

THAT is the Intellectual Property Rights of the Author. NOT mine. I am only concerned with Personal Property Rights IE the copy I bought. (I do NOT rent my property and thats what they are TRYING to claim they are doing)

They are trying to claim I do not own the content (I DO) that I just License it (I DO NOT) this implies a license can be REVOKED.

Like the LAUGHABLE decision of the Canadian judge declaring those who had gotten the harry potter book early were NOT allowed to READ IT till the proper release date. I love that judge. I think he sent a message to the publishers hey you morons sure here is the decision you want good look not looking like a fool trying to enforce it :-)

They can not come into your house and TAKE that book from you. They can not get a court order forbidding you from reading the book you OWN.

This means its your PROPERTY. You OWN IT. COPYING a book does not create intellectual property. DISTRIBUTING a book DOES and even though you created it you do NOT own it since it came from the AUTHORS IP. (OWN it ie the IP) this is why its ok to copy the book but NOT ok to distribute it.

When I say copy I mean duplicate or convert the file. Print a copy put a copy on your palm and another on your sony reader. etc.. etc..

[nerys]

"But it really comes down to the simple fact that the copyright holder has the right to choose when, where, and how a work is published. Not you or I."

THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE. This is NOT being discussed by anyone EXCEPT for you. We are not talking about PUBLISHING the book and how they do that. We are talking about what I DO with MY PROPERTY in MY HOME. Nothing more.

They have NO RIGHTS in my home or against MY property otherwise its NOT my property and that would require FORCE to take from me.

Let me get this straight. I BUY a book from an author. I am the kind of person who WILL NOT buy 2 of something. I bought one that is enough. ARE YOU SERIOUSLY TELLING ME that its MY FAULT even partly for this authors decline because I do not buy other versions of there work ??? are you really being serious? you really think this is in ANYWAY my problem? Legally OR morally?

MAN what about all the criminals who NEVER bought one of that authors books!! holy crap!

"Well, like I've said, they can say you cannot make a photocopy of your book."

I disagree. For distribution YES for personal use NO none of there business morally or legally.

[LaughingVulcan]

Originally Posted by nerys

Ok well so far your not acting like a troll so I will continue. I ENJOY discussions especially stimulating discussions. Even more so discussions that could eventually lead to education and better understanding and eventually Proper change in society.

Note if it turns nasty I am gone. I won't leave in admission of defeat or any such crap but I will leave to prevent this from turning into a flame war.

I have some ground rules that I follow and would appreciate others following as well you are off course free not to but I may also stop talking to you. Repeating myself over and over again gets tedious. IE do not ignore points I make. If you disagree with a point STAY ON POINT. DO not say no 2+2=4 is wrong and then provide something irrelevant like 2=3+5 see your wrong???? ie apples to oranges. I promise to do the same with you if I have not already replied to a point you make. If you repeat a point I already replied to I will simply direct you to read the previous posts as you should have already :-)

Not a demand. its just how I work and would appreciate a return of this common courtesy.

Sure. I'm not intending this to be flaming, either. But I have said mostly what I've wished to say about this. But I respect the amount of time you've spent in your words, as have I.

Of course, that doesn't mean we have to agree. I will say, though, that you are confusing your metaphors slightly. You could be saying 2+2=4, and I could be saying (2+2+8)*2/3=8. Or you could be saying 2+2+1=5 and I can be saying 2+2=4. In the fruit metaphor we may indeed be talking apples and oranges, but you only want to talk about apples and I want to talk about fruit. The point of this overly-long paragraph is that I am responding to what you write. If you find that irrelevant, then don't respond or reply. Or reiterate your point, or point me back at what you've written. Whatever you feel like. But that doesn't mean objectively that I'm being irrelevant.

I'm also only responding to what I care to here, so you will see snips here and there. Doesn't mean I agree or disagree, or that I don't appreciate the totality of your post. It's also in part because I want to limit the size of this reply post.

So onward and forward.

<snip>
Again irrelevant. TIRES needs to have safety standards. NO ONE with half a brain will disagree with this. ALSO its not the MANUFACTURER dictating these limitations its the LAW (regardless of the manufacturer this is important) dictating this for a GOOD JUST LOGICAL VALID REASON. ie disobeying it means people DIE.

Last time I checked there are no logical SAFETY issues with books and no one DIES if I print a book on red paper instead of white paper.

So again it was an irrelevant illogical comparison. Hence why I got upset :-)

Fine if you wish to feel that way. But there are issues of economics and theft tied into copyright. No, nobody dies from copyright infringement. But it is the law. Product safety standards are the law. You talk more about law later, but the point I'd make is: You can choose to violate the law. It does not invalidate the law.

"You check out a library book. You do not own the content. You do not have the right to go to Kinko's and photocopy the contents of the book, put it in a binder, and put it on a shelf."

No the apples to oranges is your issue here. YOUR the one that brought this up when you stated "your reading it without paying for it" in one of your posts.

SO I replied with OTHER INSTANCES of reading it without paying for it. THIS was not "my" thought process it was YOURS which I replied to :-) I never conveyed an opinion of "ownership" regarding this. JUST wanted to show the fallacy of the statement but your reading it without paying for it.

Sorry to disagree, but you're the one who brought up "other instances of reading it without paying for it," in justifying, "who is harmed by cracking the DRM." And your examples were very much apples to oranges. Especially because the subject under discussion was not just "reading without paying for it," - the fundamental issue behind copyright law - but also whether you have the right to make copies of books electronically or otherwise. So I used your example of checking books out from the library to show that a book you haven't paid for, and copied, is not legal. Even for personal use. And also, just because you are in possession of something does not convey you unlimited use to do with it what you will.

But I would like to say that I think it's called having a discussion, and not deciding who has to be right.

"The same applies if you borrow a book from your friend: It does not give you license to photocopy it. It does not even give you a right to take a paper and pencil and rewrite the whole thing on graph paper because you want to change the format of it."

But it also does not say I can not. It can NOT in fact deny me this right otherwise the transcription that occurs when I READ it into my RAM (thats my
brain) and my Hard Disk (my long term memory) would also HAVE to be illegal.

Actually, the issue of a copy being created when your computer reads software into RAM has come up in copyright litigation about software. If I recall correctly it was about the cases that determined that an archival copy of a software program (note: program - not data file) is fair use.

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.

THE ENTIRE intent of copyright law applies SOLELY to "distribution" Do you know how and why copyright law was created?

"Article I, Section 8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

It is about giving the author the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license his work. To make it short: It's as much about the licensing of the work to you than it is the distribution of it.

Player Piano's IIRC. They would BUY sheet music transcribe this to player piano paper (no problem) but then mass produce and sell these player piano strips.

See now? its not the transformation thats the problem its the DISTRIBUTION thats the problem. I can and SHOULD be able to do anything I want with that sheet music for my own uses. According to your strict interpretation of what you think the law says if I buy Piano sheet music and play it with my Guitar I am breaking the law? I am somehow violating the authors rights?

If I buy 10 sheets Convert it to guitar and then give or sell those 10 sheets of my guitar and INCLUDE the original purchased 10 sheets of piano. Well This gets grey. on one hand a legally purchased copy of the original is going with each derivative so no "new work" is generated (legally) but I am also now PROFITING from the authors work above and beyond the original purchase. I do not know how the LAW handles this but personally for free no problem for profit is a problem (to me) Copyright law DOES allow for conversion of media and it DOES permit you to PAY someone to do it for you. Like I said GREY and off the track of this discussion :-)

It is somewhat off track. But not all that grey, and having worked with music copyrights professionally for about nine of the last fourteen years I do know something about it. You have made ten new copies of a new arrangement. It would not be legal for you to do so in the first place without first having secured permission for the print music rights to duplicate them. You have created a derivative work by rearranging and/or transposing the author's work. I have had use requests both approved and rejected by clearinghouses. But I'm sorry to inform you that there is nothing grey about the situation.

If you wish to understand more, I would recommend http://www.internetmedialaw.com/arti...pub_income.pdf to understand the different types of rights that are associated with music, and http://www.mpa.org/copyright_resource_center/copying , FAQ section, which should confirm exactly what I've just written.

Do I have a problem with your doing that? Well, if it is was a song that I had written and arranged, I would, I suppose. Why? Because if you wanted a guitar version you should have asked me for it. And yep, I'd have a right to print income for a new version orchestrated for guitar, trumpet, or four-part harmony.

I'm going to snip a lot of the next section. If you feel copyright law doesn't apply, well, that's your lookout as we've previously discussed. But I do disagree with you. So maybe we'll just agree to disagree.
to those words but I DO OWN the PPR to those words.

"In addition, the publisher has the right for the work to appear in the format they have determined it should be published in."

Actually no they do not otherwise deaf people or partially blind people etc.. would be criminals. I AS OWNER of said content have the right to VIEW that content in ANY means or format or medium I so desire. They KNOW this and they also know there is NO WAY they can make a law that makes it illegal.

I think I'm following what you're saying. But I also believe you are incorrect. As I previously mentioned, different forms of publication are licensed separately. So, for an audiobook, yes the author does deserve another license royalty. I think we have just about exhausted this also, though, and must agree to disagree.

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.

"Now, six months later, Mr. Goodwriter needs to pay for his garage. So he resells the rights (because his contract with Sony allows it,) to Microsoft. Microsoft releases a LIT version. But, of course, you owned the Sony version. Mr. Goodwriter doesn't need a new garage anyway. He doesn't need your money, right?"

Thats Mr Goodwriters problem buddy. Releasing on new formats is NOT intended to sell to me (I already bought it) its intended to sell to those that DID NOT WANT the book version and NOW WANT the electronic version and are NOW WILLING to purcahse it

Your logic is so entirely flawed it really is almost laughable. I mean its almost like you LITERALLY MEAN that I am somehow DEPRIVING the author of legitimate profits if I buy his book and decide NOT to buy the 2nd edition because I already have the first edition.

Are you serious?? Your joking right? your logic is completely flawed. IT ONLY WORKS if I DISTRIBUTED that LIT version so all the lit user now have no reason to buy it.

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.

It's been mentioned several times in the thread that there is a limit at which the law will operate and be enforced. Is anyone going to come after you for making an eCopy for yourself? Doubtful at best.

That still has nothing to do with if the behavior is lawful or not.

Well we are not talking about distribution WHICH IS NOT LAWFUL. We are talking personal singular conversion. he has NO RIGHT to compel me to buy his book over and over again in new version. IN FACT copyright law was written SPECIFICALLY to prevent this thats why I AM ALLOWED to convert my VHS to DVD and my DVD to BLU RAY if I so desire. (not counting copy protection which is a separate issue from copyright law)

I have the RIGHT to enjoy my purchase in any medium I desire. His decision to not release it in all formats first well thats his problem not mine. The law backs me up on this. the media corps are TRYING to do an end run around these laws protecting me with the DMCA and DRM hence why its illegal and wrong.

"Do you have the right to get out your old Smith-Corona manual and retype the whole thing?"

YES as a matter of fact I DO have that right. Please go read some copyright law and fair use law.

And I would recommend that you do the same. Start with http://www.copyright.gov/. Fair use does not give you the right to anything, actually. It is a defense which can be employed when one is accused of infringement. It is a defense which is individually applied to specific cases of infringement. And even then you do not have the right to do whatever you wish with a work. There have been decisions where infringement was upheld for as little as 400 Words of an article that was never published.

To make this short, as the intellectual property lawyer above put so much more succinctly, I'm afraid I can't agree that you understand the fundamentals of copyright. And I do not intend to insult you with that. I'm simply hoping that your views do not lead you into a situation where you will be wrong and have to pay a price for that.

"Here lies the difference between Copyright, Patent, and Trademark"

WHAT ?? do you even know what those words mean?? copyright and patent are EXACTLY the same things.
<snip>

No. They are not. They are entirely different concepts of intellectual property protections, for different types of intellectual property.

http://www.lawmart.com/searches/difference.htm.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...and-patent.htm
http://www.gillhams.com/articles/166.cfm
http://www.askdavetaylor.com/differe...e_patents.html

They are protected under different laws, by different governmental bodies, for different reasons, and with different case law behind them.

<snip>
""I can shout fire in a crowded theatre,""

and doing so is YOUR RIGHT and can NOT be taken from you (please read the first amendment)

any law saying you can NOT yell fire in a theatre is ILLEGAL and UNENFORCEABLE

what the law SHOULD say is its illegal to cause a panic or potential panic in a theater REGARDLESS of how you do this. Same effect without violating the first amendment.

So the illegal act is NOT yelling fire. its causing a PANIC or POTENTIAL PANIC that fact that you yelled fire to do this is not relevant. I am pretty sure the supreme court already shot this down or at least they should have I will have to look into it. but you get my point.

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?

Actually YOU CAN walk down main street with a sixgun on your hip. ANY law saying otherwise is illegal (NO I would not openly challenge it without proper preparation as the risk is too high) in fact in MANY states it is PERFECTLY legal to carry a weapon. its carrying a CONCEALED weapon that you need a permit for :-)

Why is there any difference? But, that aside, I hope you never try it in Manhattan without a permit. (And forgive me for not mentioning that little bit before.) Because you can personally believe that is legal behavior all you wish. It will still get you 3 and a half to fifteen.

"Your right to make a fist ends at the moment it swings towards my nose and I reasonably believe you are throwing a punch."

LaughingVulcan. Come on man you have VULCAN in your name for christs sake this should mean you know SOMETHING about the word LOGIC. I am not trying to insult yo I just laughed when I read your illogical quote above and then noted your name :-)

No insult taken. Few people seem to realize that the "Laughing" part comes first, or that a LaughingVulcan is usually a contradiction. (No, I am not a troll. I have been using this web name for a Long time.) Or the assumption that a Vulcan must have perfect logic - which has not been true since at least Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country. But I digress. I think that's part of the problem - it takes so long to respond that I get tired. And I usually ramble on when I get tired. Anyway...

You describe two acts. MAKING A FIST and THREATENING YOU WITH IT.
<snip>

All I was noting was, as you have somewhat affirmed, rights have their limits.

"Then, as I said, run for office and become one who changes it. If you can. Or back someone who will do what you feel is right."

But this will not work. The system is broken. the LAST avenue to fix this system is mass defiance by the people.

I am more optimistic. But I know that you are not without your evidence for that view. And you might be right. Or I might.

Or I could go to bed now. That seems more likely.

(But I did fully read what you wrote to the end of your post.)

[nerys]

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/