[DMCA_Discuss] Is New Amendment needed? (was: Intel Continues to DO IT RIGHT!)

[Anatoly Volynets]

On Friday 12 April 2002 09:59 am, tom poe wrote:
> On Friday 12 April 2002 05:37, Seth Johnson wrote:
> > Matthew:
> >
> > Build constituency.
> >
> > Seth Johnson
>
> Hi:  That's twice I've seen you use that phrase.  Can we expand on that?
> Does it mean, let's spread the word and convert others to thinking there's
> a problem that needs to be addressed?  Is it a marketing idea, plan,
> strategy? Thanks,
> Tom
> _______________________________________________

Hi Tom,

We went a little astray here, didn't we? It was my assumption linked here, 
which I would like to outline one more time:

1. All legal mess around IP is related to certain understanding of ideas and 
works of art, which liken them to the private property.
2.  Based on that big IP holders made already happen some laws (BTW, who 
knows exactly,how many?) which strangle cultural development and normal 
cultural life in whole.
3. They have done this, they continue to do this, and they will proceed, why 
not?
4. On the other hand, this all has been done based on US Constitution, which 
states: 'The Congress shall have Power...
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; '
5. So I come to conclusion that above statement must be clarified by another 
Amendment, so: a) no other copyright extension or copy protection measures 
would happen again; b) all existing laws of that kind may become clearly 
unconstitutional.
6. To make it happen it is necessary, first of all, to agree upon the 
solution: is this new Amendment needed?

Anatoly
>
> ------------------------
> http://www.anti-dmca.org
> ------------------------
>
> DMCA_Discuss mailing list
> DMCA_Discuss at lists.microshaft.org
> http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss