Comments on: Copyright warnings ‘deceptive’

By: Anon

Anon — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:50:09 +0000

To whom is copyright law advantageous? Suppliers – and mostly people who like porn and video games.

Porn watchers and video game players obviously need legal protection, so they can continue with their
productive and worthwhile activities.

By: Mike Young, Esq.

Mike Young, Esq. — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:17:59 +0000

Current copyright laws impede economic growth. It is like applying 19th Century rules for steamboat river navigation to cars speeding down an interstate highway. And the laws only get worse because the entertainment industry buys votes for passage of draconian measures such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Intellectual property laws need a complete overhaul to reflect the world as it is now instead of 50 years ago. Don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen because there’s too much power and money at stake for the media dinosaurs trying to protect their turf through regulation instead of competition. Civil disobedience, such as one routinely sees with P2P, bittorrent, etc. is the result of such regulatory nonsense.

By: ben

ben — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 23:53:12 +0000

To whom is copyright law advantageous? The average person? or monopolistic corporations with law firm retainers in the tens of millions?

I consider it manifest. The aforementioned laws no longer serve the public interest. Thus, approbation is rendered ineffectual.

By: Rafael Venegas

Rafael Venegas — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:27:31 +0000

ILLEGAL LEGAL ADVICE AND THE PROSTITUTION OF REASON

I call legal warning on products ILLEGAL LEGAL ADVICE for a variety of reasons. For example:

- Legal advise should only be given by lawyers who identify themselves and who specify where they are authorized to practice law.

- All legal advise given on products sold in multiple geographical jurisdictions should specify in what jurisdiction the legal advise is correct and should make it clear than in other jurisdiction, the advice does not apply.

- No legal advise should be given for jurisdictions where court decisions have been in conflict or do not exist or where the copyright law is not clear or inexistent. For example, the courts are struggling to determine if “making available” is infringement. Some corts have said it is illegal and some have said it is not ilegal. If it is not illegal, then all p2p sharing is legal.

- Any lawyer who gives legal advise that says “no part may be copied without the owner’s authorization” should somehow be penalized for giving faulty legal advise, dressed as a warning. This type of advise is faulty, we all know, because it goes against the fair use legal doctrine.

- Any lawyer who gives legal advise on a product that falsely claim copyrights (on public domain works, a much more common problem than is recognized) should also be penalized.

One final point, copyright infringement is a confusing legal maze of endless possibilities and combination of facts that no single person or lawyer can fully comprehend. Even lawyers much dedicate much time to research all sorts of unclear court decisions and legal opinions. Under such circumstance it is a crime to say that copyright infringement, whatever that is, is a crime. Any legal advise to the contrary is nothing more than THE PROSTITUTION OF REASON for monetary interests.