If the author of this article would be unknown it might compromise the credibility of the story, but there’s nothing wrong with that. Would you give up the right to publish your opinion (or what you believe are facts) anonymously? I wouldn’t.

If you sell DVDs, you’re free to fill them with all kinds of legal crap, and if you buy DVDs you’re free to ignore said legal crap.

I don’t think so.

My position is not that only lawyers be allowed to give legal advise. The same goes for medical advise. We all know that we all depend on lay persons for all types of advise but we adults always know the credentials of the person giving the advise and the person giving the advise always assumes some responsibility. Certainly when a non doctor friend gives me useful medical advise, I appreciate it.

The problem with the warnings on DVDs is that it is not legal advise as such. It is a legal threat directed to the customers. Then the threats are not in sync with the law and jurisprudence in countries where the DVD is sold or seen. Then the source and the source’s credentials are unknown. It’s all wrong.

Ideally the person who asumes responsibility for any advise, legal or medical or whatever should identify itself and its credentials.

Can anyone imagine if this article and its opinions about the warnings did not indicate it was written by Michael Geist or what his credentials were? The credibility of the story wouls simply be different, depending on the author.

Apples and oranges. Fraudulous medical claims kill people, erroneous legal advice in copyright matters does not. When balancing freedom of speech versus other interests, the potential for a bit of legal discomfort does not justify granting lawyers a monopoly on publishing legal advice.

“Freedom Of Speech requires that nobody limits my right to publish my interpretation of any law.”

No so. If this theory were correct, the government could not prevent anyone from printing medical advice on the label of a snake oil bottle, saying the snale oil cures cancer, diabetes and heart desease.

Now, if a book says that an identified lawyer is of the opinion that the book is not in the public domain and cannot be freely copied in the coutry of origin, and the lawyer is licensed in the country of origin, I’ll buy that.

Anything else is snake oil legal advise.

Of course if the lawyer give a wrong legal advise, he/she may have to pay somehow for the wrong legal advise.

Freedom Of Speech requires that nobody limits my right to publish my interpretation of any law.

The solution is to prohibit all legal advise on the media or web page where copyright matter is published (excepting legal textbooks, legal web sites, etc.). The reason is simple… the legal advise may be wrong in some places, or me stop being correct if the law changes or the advise cannot be interpreted by lay persons.

Legal advise should only be given by licensed lawyers and that advise is proper only within the boundaries covered by the lawyer’s license. It makes no sense to buy a book with legal advise from a California lawyer in Canada.

True, if all these scare tactics legal advise are eliminated, the so called infringement and file sharing may increase but also the purchase of user friendly copyright products may increase, and is that not what copyright holders want?