Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

VHS Tape Copyright Protected??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:54:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm using a Dazzle DV Bridge to capture home recorded VHS tapes. I'm
trying to capture a tape of a sporting event broadcast on ABC about
twenty years ago. I successfully captured from another tape, but on
this one I keep getting an error message from Ulead VideoStudio that
says "cannot capture file because it is copyright protected".

How is this possible and is there a workaround?

TIA
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:54:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Registered User" wrote...
> I'm using a Dazzle DV Bridge to capture home recorded
> VHS tapes. I'm trying to capture a tape of a sporting event
> broadcast on ABC about twenty years ago. I successfully
> captured from another tape, but on this one I keep getting
> an error message from Ulead VideoStudio that says "cannot
> capture file because it is copyright protected".

Sometimes an old, crummy tape has artifacts that make
equipment *think* the tape is Macrovision protected.
Most people use a device called a "timebase corrector"
(TBC) to "clean up" the video and allow decent capture.

Of course the TBC does not solve the legal issue of whether
you have permission to use ABC's intellectual property.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:54:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>
> Of course the TBC does not solve the legal issue of whether
> you have permission to use ABC's intellectual property.
>

20 year time shifting is protected under fair use.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 9:19:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:11gnbbviu7fcu2a@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>
>> Of course the TBC does not solve the legal issue of whether
>> you have permission to use ABC's intellectual property.
>>
>
> 20 year time shifting is protected under fair use.

Viewing the original tape is "time-shifting" and is allowed.

Making a copy of the tape is NOT "time-shifting" and is
NOT protected.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 10:36:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

You could probably use a SIMA CT-2. They are about $80.

Ad making a copy of the tape to time shift it for personal use for
another 20 years IS fair use.

Cheers...
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:20:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:55:19 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
<richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote:

>"Registered User" wrote...
>> I'm using a Dazzle DV Bridge to capture home recorded
>> VHS tapes. I'm trying to capture a tape of a sporting event
>> broadcast on ABC about twenty years ago. I successfully
>> captured from another tape, but on this one I keep getting
>> an error message from Ulead VideoStudio that says "cannot
>> capture file because it is copyright protected".
>
>Sometimes an old, crummy tape has artifacts that make
>equipment *think* the tape is Macrovision protected.
>Most people use a device called a "timebase corrector"
>(TBC) to "clean up" the video and allow decent capture.
>
>Of course the TBC does not solve the legal issue of whether
>you have permission to use ABC's intellectual property.
>

Thanks for the info. The tape doesn't look too bad on playback, but
that must be what's happening. ABC didn't complain when I recorded the
show twenty years ago, so I think they're cool with it. Besides, it's
for personal veiwing, not for profit. And I was only guessing at which
network it was.

I can't afford a TBC, so I'll have to forget that tape, I suppose.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 12:17:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mark Burns" wrote ...
> You could probably use a SIMA CT-2. They are about $80.
>
> Ad making a copy of the tape to time shift it for personal
> use for another 20 years IS fair use.

Prove it. Cite chapter and verse that exempts personal
copying of copyright-protected video from the copyright
law. It is no more legal than copying DVDs.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:47:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in message
news:D egeeq$hdn$1@news01.intel.com...
>
> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
> news:11gnbbviu7fcu2a@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>
>>> Of course the TBC does not solve the legal issue of whether
>>> you have permission to use ABC's intellectual property.
>>>
>>
>> 20 year time shifting is protected under fair use.
>
> Viewing the original tape is "time-shifting" and is allowed.
>
> Making a copy of the tape is NOT "time-shifting" and is
> NOT protected.
>

It is protected if the original tape was not viewed. Further, the original
copyright law has provisions for backup.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:47:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11gnpmsth4go86@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mark Burns" wrote ...
>> You could probably use a SIMA CT-2. They are about $80.
>>
>> Ad making a copy of the tape to time shift it for personal use for
>> another 20 years IS fair use.
>
> Prove it. Cite chapter and verse that exempts personal
> copying of copyright-protected video from the copyright
> law. It is no more legal than copying DVDs.

You are wrong. Please read carefully at www.eff.org. YOU prove that it is
illegal!
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 5:46:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:54:55 -0400, Registered User <not@today.com>
wrote:

>I'm using a Dazzle DV Bridge to capture home recorded VHS tapes. I'm
>trying to capture a tape of a sporting event broadcast on ABC about
>twenty years ago. I successfully captured from another tape, but on
>this one I keep getting an error message from Ulead VideoStudio that
>says "cannot capture file because it is copyright protected".
>
>How is this possible and is there a workaround?
>
>TIA

digital video stabilizer
http://tinyurl.com/dkkba
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:27:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:11go2f1ebbsd31e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in message
> news:D egeeq$hdn$1@news01.intel.com...
> >
> > "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
> > news:11gnbbviu7fcu2a@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Of course the TBC does not solve the legal issue of whether
> >>> you have permission to use ABC's intellectual property.
> >>>
> >>
> >> 20 year time shifting is protected under fair use.
> >
> > Viewing the original tape is "time-shifting" and is allowed.
> >
> > Making a copy of the tape is NOT "time-shifting" and is
> > NOT protected.
> >
>
> It is protected if the original tape was not viewed. Further, the
original
> copyright law has provisions for backup.

I don't know where people get this stuff.

Wrong, on both counts.


>
>
>
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:28:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mark Burns" <marcus520520@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124847408.217395.265680@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You could probably use a SIMA CT-2. They are about $80.
>
> Ad making a copy of the tape to time shift it for personal use for
> another 20 years IS fair use.

1. He's not time-shifting.
2. The fact that it's for personal use doesn't mean it's fair use.


>
> Cheers...
>
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 10:29:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11gnpmsth4go86@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mark Burns" wrote ...
> > You could probably use a SIMA CT-2. They are about $80.
> >
> > Ad making a copy of the tape to time shift it for personal
> > use for another 20 years IS fair use.
>
> Prove it. Cite chapter and verse that exempts personal
> copying of copyright-protected video from the copyright
> law. It is no more legal than copying DVDs.

You're right on the money, Richard. This "if it's personal use it's legal"
urban myth needs to die a quick death.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 11:22:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

You are the attorney.

Please cite a case where someone was prosecuted for copying their OTA
tape to another tape, CD, or DVD for their private viewing. I have
read and seen many cases where people have been charged with illegal
distribution. I don't doubt that one could be sued, but I doubt that
even a conservative Supreme Court would condone the invasion of a man's
castle to wrest a marginal personel memory based upon vague copyright
claims. And they are just that, claims.

Fair Use is an affirmitive defense. There are countless reasons to
want to maintain a copy of that broadcast. It might be the last
football game that he and his father watched together. It may be that
there was someone in the broadcast that he knew. These are personal
reasons. I have no reason why the OP would want to keep an old ABC
broadcast, and would never pry. Nor would I condemn.

Historicaly, copyright is not the exclusive right to copy material, it
is the exclusive right to distribute material. This goes back to the
days of the first printing presses. School children used to learn to
read and write by hand copying copyrighted material from books that
they could not legally distribute.

Copyright laws were made to serve the public good, not to serve the
private greed. Certainly greed can be a postitive influence on the
marketplace, but the laws were never meant to create intellectual
property or condone the hoarding of material from the public. As I
recall, when "Laurence Of Arabia" was remastered by David Lean back in
the late 80's, many of the frames used in the mastering process came
from private copies, and some were unauthorized copies that had been
released to theatres and never picked back up. The studio had let
their copies rot in tin cans on the shelf. No one prosecuted those
private owners, and they had less claim on their material than someone
who copied an ABC broadcast 20 years ago onto their own video tape.

Personaly, I wish that everyone was an archivest, at least of those
things that they found the most dear, for whatever silly human
sentimental reason. History and posterity are both served by this. I
sincerely hope that the OP successfully trasfers his tape for whatever
historical or personal purpose that he has.

Transporting ones legally obtained memories from ones own property to
ones own property is nothing more than ones own business. This is not
anarchism, it is simply liberty.

Cheers...

P.S. Isn't there some Latin phrase that says that the law does not
trifle with trifles?
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 1:29:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mark Burns" <marcus520520@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124936524.278309.171520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> You are the attorney.
>
> Please cite a case where someone was prosecuted for copying their OTA
> tape to another tape, CD, or DVD for their private viewing.

You're talking apples and oranges. Whether someone has been sued has
nothing to do with whether the law permits the kind of conduct you've
described.

> I have
> read and seen many cases where people have been charged with illegal
> distribution. I don't doubt that one could be sued, but I doubt that
> even a conservative Supreme Court would condone the invasion of a man's
> castle to wrest a marginal personel memory based upon vague copyright
> claims. And they are just that, claims.

The prohibition on illegal search and seizure contained in the 4th amendment
is a restriction on GOVERNMENT action, not on private action. You most
certainly can be sued for what you do in your home.

Again, you're talking about whether someone would be caught, or whether
someone would be sued -- entirely different questions than whether what
you've advocated is legal. It is not. Period.

>
> Fair Use is an affirmitive defense.

That's right. So?

> There are countless reasons to
> want to maintain a copy of that broadcast. It might be the last
> football game that he and his father watched together. It may be that
> there was someone in the broadcast that he knew. These are personal
> reasons.

None of which are relevant to a fair use defense. Fair use does not
consider why a person wanted to make an unauthorized copy, but how the copy
was used.

> I have no reason why the OP would want to keep an old ABC
> broadcast, and would never pry. Nor would I condemn.

I don't condemn. I merely corrected your erroneous contention, i.e. that
personal use was fair use.

>
> Historicaly, copyright is not the exclusive right to copy material, it
> is the exclusive right to distribute material.

No, historically, it was the exclusive right copy, at in the tradition of US
law which began with the Statute of Anne.

> This goes back to the
> days of the first printing presses.

No, it goes back to the Statute of Anne in 1710, which was a long time after
the invention of printing presses.

> School children used to learn to
> read and write by hand copying copyrighted material from books that
> they could not legally distribute.

You can make up whatever you like, just as you've made up your "personal use
= fair use" doctrine -- it's still incorrect.

>
> Copyright laws were made to serve the public good, not to serve the
> private greed.

Copyright laws were made as an incentive to creation -- it allows authors to
keep the fruits of their intellectual labors, and therefore encourages them
to produce more. In the U.S., copyright is authorized by Article I, Section
8 of the Constitution, which permits Congress, "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."

As I said, you can make up whatever you want, but you're simply incorrect.


> Certainly greed can be a postitive influence on the
> marketplace, but the laws were never meant to create intellectual
> property or condone the hoarding of material from the public.

Completely wrong. What do you think, "exclusive right to their respective
writings" means? An author has an absolute right to withhold material from
the public -- if you think I'm wrong, go down to Blockbusters and try to
rent the film version of Catcher in the Rye. Hint: there's never been one.

> As I
> recall, when "Laurence Of Arabia" was remastered by David Lean back in
> the late 80's, many of the frames used in the mastering process came
> from private copies, and some were unauthorized copies that had been
> released to theatres and never picked back up. The studio had let
> their copies rot in tin cans on the shelf. No one prosecuted those
> private owners, and they had less claim on their material than someone
> who copied an ABC broadcast 20 years ago onto their own video tape.

Ownership of unauthorized copies isn't illegal. Copyright, in the US,
secures for a copyright owner protection against unauthorized copying,
distribution, preparation of derivative works and public performance. See
17 U.S.C. Sec. 106. It is perfectly legal to own unauthorized copies.

>
> Personaly, I wish that everyone was an archivest, at least of those
> things that they found the most dear, for whatever silly human
> sentimental reason. History and posterity are both served by this. I
> sincerely hope that the OP successfully trasfers his tape for whatever
> historical or personal purpose that he has.

Personally, I wish people would stop pretending that their personal biases
and preferences are the law. You can wish whatever you want. Your wishes,
however, are not the law and you really need to stop telling people that
they are.


>
> Transporting ones legally obtained memories from ones own property to
> ones own property is nothing more than ones own business. This is not
> anarchism, it is simply liberty.

And ignoring the law is simply anarchy. And ignorance of the law is . . .
well . . . simply ignorance.

>
> Cheers...
>
> P.S. Isn't there some Latin phrase that says that the law does not
> trifle with trifles?

There are legal maxims for just about everything. How about this one (from
Marbury v. Madison): For every right there is a remedy.

>
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 1:40:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mark Burns" wrote ...
> You are the attorney.

Were you addressing someone specifically, or do you think we
are ALL attorneys here? These copyright discussions always
amuse me because they are so completely meaningless and a
waste of time. No amount of discussion here, no matter how
passionate or voluminous, makes a whit of difference. Those who
choose to ignore the law or wish it were different are just putting
themselves in legal jeopardy. There are no two ways about it.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 8:14:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in message
news:D eks96$o4e$1@news01.intel.com...
> "Mark Burns" wrote ...
>> You are the attorney.
>
> Were you addressing someone specifically, or do you think we
> are ALL attorneys here? These copyright discussions always
> amuse me because they are so completely meaningless and a
> waste of time. No amount of discussion here, no matter how
> passionate or voluminous, makes a whit of difference. Those who
> choose to ignore the law or wish it were different are just putting
> themselves in legal jeopardy. There are no two ways about it.
>

For some reason my post is not showing up....I try again:

The interest is because the law is unclear, contradictory, and results in
teams of scholars and legal analysts trying to figure it out. The DMCA is
self contradictory in a number of places resulting in continuing battles
in the courts.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 12:14:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

AnthonyR wrote:

> PTravel and Richard,
>
> I usually stay out of these copyright flame wars, but legally, morally,
> ethically, whatever you want to call it,
> if the guy copies his 20 year old vhs tape (not breaking any copy protection
> scheme) for his own archival, I
> would think he's not going to jail anytime soon. Would you both agree that
> is safe to say?

Sure. That's not the point, and irrelevant to anything I was
discussing. "Alpha" made a statement about copyright law which is dead
wrong, i.e. "personal use = fair use." I commented on that statement,
and that statement only. Instead of acknowledging his error, he went
on to make even more outrageous, and completely incorrect statements.

There are a lot of urban myths about copyright, some of which can get
people in trouble. I'll correct them when I encounter them.

Incidently, I'm a licensed attorney, a partner in the intellectual
property department of a national law firm, and this is kind of law
that I practice.


>
> Today I just heard on the news that chinese hackers attempted 76,000 times
> to gain access to our military computers
> so that in case we ever go to war with China they can level the playing
> field by taking out our Militaries GPS systems
> and other sensative networks. This issue should concern us Americans as a
> higher priority than illegal vhs copies!
> Let's get our ranting priorities in order here.

China is not planning to go to war with the US, nor would it ever have
any reason to. America's enemies are in the opposite direction, i.e.
our so-called friends like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not to mention
our avowed enemies, such as Syria.

I agree -- let's get our priorities in order.


>
> :) 
>
> AnthonyR.
August 26, 2005 3:56:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:vsUOe.318$MN5.313@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Mark Burns" <marcus520520@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1124847408.217395.265680@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> You could probably use a SIMA CT-2. They are about $80.
>>
>> Ad making a copy of the tape to time shift it for personal use for
>> another 20 years IS fair use.
>
> 1. He's not time-shifting.
> 2. The fact that it's for personal use doesn't mean it's fair use.
>
>
>>
>> Cheers...
>>
>
>

PTravel and Richard,

I usually stay out of these copyright flame wars, but legally, morally,
ethically, whatever you want to call it,
if the guy copies his 20 year old vhs tape (not breaking any copy protection
scheme) for his own archival, I
would think he's not going to jail anytime soon. Would you both agree that
is safe to say?

Today I just heard on the news that chinese hackers attempted 76,000 times
to gain access to our military computers
so that in case we ever go to war with China they can level the playing
field by taking out our Militaries GPS systems
and other sensative networks. This issue should concern us Americans as a
higher priority than illegal vhs copies!
Let's get our ranting priorities in order here.

:) 

AnthonyR.
August 26, 2005 10:16:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:1125026070.126786.16800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> AnthonyR wrote:
>
>> PTravel and Richard,
>>
>> I usually stay out of these copyright flame wars, but legally, morally,
>> ethically, whatever you want to call it,
>> if the guy copies his 20 year old vhs tape (not breaking any copy
>> protection
>> scheme) for his own archival, I
>> would think he's not going to jail anytime soon. Would you both agree
>> that
>> is safe to say?
>
> Sure. That's not the point, and irrelevant to anything I was
> discussing. "Alpha" made a statement about copyright law which is dead
> wrong, i.e. "personal use = fair use." I commented on that statement,
> and that statement only. Instead of acknowledging his error, he went
> on to make even more outrageous, and completely incorrect statements.
>
> There are a lot of urban myths about copyright, some of which can get
> people in trouble. I'll correct them when I encounter them.
>
> Incidently, I'm a licensed attorney, a partner in the intellectual
> property department of a national law firm, and this is kind of law
> that I practice.
>
>
>>
>> Today I just heard on the news that chinese hackers attempted 76,000
>> times
>> to gain access to our military computers
>> so that in case we ever go to war with China they can level the playing
>> field by taking out our Militaries GPS systems
>> and other sensative networks. This issue should concern us Americans as a
>> higher priority than illegal vhs copies!
>> Let's get our ranting priorities in order here.
>
> China is not planning to go to war with the US, nor would it ever have
> any reason to. America's enemies are in the opposite direction, i.e.
> our so-called friends like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not to mention
> our avowed enemies, such as Syria.
>
> I agree -- let's get our priorities in order.
>
>
>>
>> :) 
>>
>> AnthonyR.
>

Hey,
Cool, it's always good to get free legal advice, the group is fortunate to
have you.

And true, most Americans think China isn't are enemy or would never plan a
war with us, but think about this.
There are only so many resources left on this planet, mainly oil for energy,
also water etc..
With China's population growing leaps and bounds over our measly 260 million
or so people. in about 10 to 20 years tops
they will be fight for those remaining resources with everyone on the
planet. Being we as Americans consume probably 20 fold
if not more what other people do in resources, we would be the direct
competitor for those resources.
Darwinian forces will win out over diplomacy everytime when the future of a
nation and race are at stake, don't kid yourself in thinking
they'll sacrifice the lives of millions of their people to every one of us,
when divvying up what's left of the pie!

They are for sure planning their survival against the super-power(being us)
from now, they'd be stupid not to.
Unfortunately our leaders are too distracted at the moment to concentrate
and allocate resources at protecting our security from
the Red internet attacks. According to the news, we can't just go their and
question people, and the Chinese government is being uncooperative.

Also, with the fall of communism in Russia, our once rival will also compete
for resources just the same, as the communists that are left.
Sure we can all be calm about it now, and worry about terrorism that might
happen again, but our survival as a nation depends on our ability
to secure not only our borders but our technology which is our only
advantage to our survival some day. Unless you see some world government
where we all have one leader and all share the worlds resources evenly,
that's what we have to protect against. 20 years will be here in the blink
of an eye, and our children will think remember the good ol days before all
this?

Hey sounds like a good book, no?

AnthonyR.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 11:08:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" wrote ...
> PTravel and Richard,
>
> I usually stay out of these copyright flame wars, but
> legally, morally, ethically, whatever you want to call
> it, if the guy copies his 20 year old vhs tape (not
> breaking any copy protection scheme) for his own
> archival, I would think he's not going to jail anytime
> soon. Would you both agree that is safe to say?

Mr. "PTravel" (a working IP attorney) has already made
the point about correcting "Alpha"s incorrect theory that
"personal use = fair use".

I will also observe that in the original question, the OP
did not address the issue of whether he was making a
single copy for himself, or 100 copies for all his friends.

> Today I just heard on the news that chinese hackers
> attempted 76,000 times to gain access to our military
> computers so that in case we ever go to war with China
> they can level the playing field by taking out our Militaries
> GPS systems and other sensative networks. This issue
> should concern us Americans as a higher priority than
> illegal vhs copies!
> Let's get our ranting priorities in order here.

I would suggest that kind of behavior is merely a logical
further step from anarchist behavior like wilful ignorance
of copyright laws and other so-called "victimless crimes".
Even if nobody else appears to be harmed, the lawbreaker
themselves just reinforces their anti-social behavior.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 2:00:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:HsyPe.19586$%w.14173@twister.nyc.rr.com...

> And true, most Americans think China isn't are enemy or would never plan a
> war with us, but think about this.
> There are only so many resources left on this planet, mainly oil for
energy,
> also water etc..
> With China's population growing leaps and bounds over our measly 260
million
> or so people. in about 10 to 20 years tops
> they will be fight for those remaining resources with everyone on the
> planet. Being we as Americans consume probably 20 fold
> if not more what other people do in resources, we would be the direct
> competitor for those resources.
> Darwinian forces will win out over diplomacy everytime when the future of
a
> nation and race are at stake, don't kid yourself in thinking
> they'll sacrifice the lives of millions of their people to every one of
us,
> when divvying up what's left of the pie!
>
> They are for sure planning their survival against the super-power(being
us)
> from now, they'd be stupid not to.
> Unfortunately our leaders are too distracted at the moment to concentrate
> and allocate resources at protecting our security from
> the Red internet attacks. According to the news, we can't just go their
and
> question people, and the Chinese government is being uncooperative.
>
> Also, with the fall of communism in Russia, our once rival will also
compete
> for resources just the same, as the communists that are left.
> Sure we can all be calm about it now, and worry about terrorism that might
> happen again, but our survival as a nation depends on our ability
> to secure not only our borders but our technology which is our only
> advantage to our survival some day. Unless you see some world government
> where we all have one leader and all share the worlds resources evenly,
> that's what we have to protect against. 20 years will be here in the blink
> of an eye, and our children will think remember the good ol days before
all
> this?
>
> Hey sounds like a good book, no?

And, fortunately, that's what is -- fiction. China is only nominally
Communist -- it is, at this point and in the economic sense, far more
capitalistic than the U.S. The US is China's biggest trading partner, and
also an ally against Islamic expansionism (something that China is troubled
with as well as the U.S.). The Chinese people themselves regard us as
friends, not potential enemies.

China simply isn't a threat of any kind to us (except, perhaps, economic --
they do capitalism better than we do), and has the potential to be America's
greatest ally.


>
> AnthonyR.
>
>
August 27, 2005 2:00:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11gu8i7nufteab9@corp.supernews.com...
> "AnthonyR" wrote ...
>> PTravel and Richard,
>>
>> I usually stay out of these copyright flame wars, but legally, morally,
>> ethically, whatever you want to call
>> it, if the guy copies his 20 year old vhs tape (not
>> breaking any copy protection scheme) for his own
>> archival, I would think he's not going to jail anytime
>> soon. Would you both agree that is safe to say?
>
> Mr. "PTravel" (a working IP attorney) has already made
> the point about correcting "Alpha"s incorrect theory that
> "personal use = fair use".
> I will also observe that in the original question, the OP did not address
> the issue of whether he was making a single copy for himself, or 100
> copies for all his friends.
>
>> Today I just heard on the news that chinese hackers attempted 76,000
>> times to gain access to our military computers so that in case we ever
>> go to war with China they can level the playing field by taking out our
>> Militaries GPS systems and other sensative networks. This issue should
>> concern us Americans as a higher priority than illegal vhs copies!
>> Let's get our ranting priorities in order here.
>
> I would suggest that kind of behavior is merely a logical further step
> from anarchist behavior like wilful ignorance of copyright laws and other
> so-called "victimless crimes". Even if nobody else appears to be harmed,
> the lawbreaker themselves just reinforces their anti-social behavior.

Richard, funny about how different people chose different issues to define
as the line that
causes anit-social behavior. It's always different for different people. As
closer as it is
to home, our own economic future, the more important and moral issue it
becomes.

As an example, I'll say I know people who are 100 % Christian
fundamentalists and take offense to
the slightest sense of immorality, abortion issues, etc... Yet they see
nothing wrong with copying
a show or movie they like to share with all their friends. Interesting isn't
it?

AnthonyR.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:00:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" wrote ...
> As an example, I'll say I know people who are 100 %
> Christian fundamentalists and take offense to the slightest
> sense of immorality, abortion issues, etc... Yet they see
> nothing wrong with copying a show or movie they like to
> share with all their friends. Interesting isn't it?

You have my full permission and cooperation in pointing
out their hypocritical behavior.

I would seriously question the "100% Christian"
characterization. To their face if necessary.
August 27, 2005 2:26:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:3n904sFemi0U1@individual.net...
>
> "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:HsyPe.19586$%w.14173@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>> And true, most Americans think China isn't are enemy or would never plan
>> a
>> war with us, but think about this.
>> There are only so many resources left on this planet, mainly oil for
> energy,
>> also water etc..
>> With China's population growing leaps and bounds over our measly 260
> million
>> or so people. in about 10 to 20 years tops
>> they will be fight for those remaining resources with everyone on the
>> planet. Being we as Americans consume probably 20 fold
>> if not more what other people do in resources, we would be the direct
>> competitor for those resources.
>> Darwinian forces will win out over diplomacy everytime when the future of
> a
>> nation and race are at stake, don't kid yourself in thinking
>> they'll sacrifice the lives of millions of their people to every one of
> us,
>> when divvying up what's left of the pie!
>>
>> They are for sure planning their survival against the super-power(being
> us)
>> from now, they'd be stupid not to.
>> Unfortunately our leaders are too distracted at the moment to concentrate
>> and allocate resources at protecting our security from
>> the Red internet attacks. According to the news, we can't just go their
> and
>> question people, and the Chinese government is being uncooperative.
>>
>> Also, with the fall of communism in Russia, our once rival will also
> compete
>> for resources just the same, as the communists that are left.
>> Sure we can all be calm about it now, and worry about terrorism that
>> might
>> happen again, but our survival as a nation depends on our ability
>> to secure not only our borders but our technology which is our only
>> advantage to our survival some day. Unless you see some world government
>> where we all have one leader and all share the worlds resources evenly,
>> that's what we have to protect against. 20 years will be here in the
>> blink
>> of an eye, and our children will think remember the good ol days before
> all
>> this?
>>
>> Hey sounds like a good book, no?
>
> And, fortunately, that's what is -- fiction. China is only nominally
> Communist -- it is, at this point and in the economic sense, far more
> capitalistic than the U.S. The US is China's biggest trading partner, and
> also an ally against Islamic expansionism (something that China is
> troubled
> with as well as the U.S.). The Chinese people themselves regard us as
> friends, not potential enemies.
>
> China simply isn't a threat of any kind to us (except, perhaps,
> economic --
> they do capitalism better than we do), and has the potential to be
> America's
> greatest ally.
>

It's really naive to thing China isn't any threat to us. Why then, should we
not share all our military secrets with them openely?
Heck, let's show them how to make all our weapons systems, so they can help
us against islamic fundamentalists, NOT!

They are considered and adversary, true fact, not an alley in any ones book.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/08/25/hackers.chi...

Also, China doesn't have our view own intellectual property rights and
copyrights.
That's why illegal movie DVD making goes on openly even with no government
intervention.
What about that point of view of theirs?

Remember most wars are fought over less divisive issues, civil wars are
fought were people share national identity, race etc...
countries become divided and wars errupt, so it is very naive to think a
nation as China with hardly nothing in common with
American traditions, values or morals( not that Chinese have no morals, in
fact I respect theirs). It's just that differences can someday find our two
nations at odds with each other, especially when resources
are used up. Heck, brothers fight for last piece of pie!
What we all forget is resourses are limited, energy, food and water is not
unlimited, and people will fight to survive with each other one day.
So that is not fiction. How soon, 20 years or 200 years, that would be
fiction to give an exact date. True.

And Yes, I agree, Chinese people themselves don't see us as a threat
personally at the moment, but attitudes can change quickly when a man sees
his family starving, 30 people living in a small room and hear that
Americans are driving SUV's that burn more gas in a trip to the casino than
would be needed to power their cooking for a year.
How about the woman in Sudan who walk half a day to gather twigs to a make a
fire to cook, and most of the woman are raped on the journey with the
government turning a blind eye. 90% of the men in that town were already
killed (Darwinism at work), limited resources.

So globally we haven't felt it yet, but it's coming, unless a plague
destroys half the worlds population, which has always helped limit resource
usage in the past. But with scientists finding vacines and preventing nature
from controlling the population, who knows what will save us.
Maybe those billions spend on the space shuttle can be helpful, we can build
moon colonies. :) 

AnthonyR.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:26:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bGMPe.19626$%w.8278@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:3n904sFemi0U1@individual.net...
> >
> > "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:HsyPe.19586$%w.14173@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> >> And true, most Americans think China isn't are enemy or would never
plan
> >> a
> >> war with us, but think about this.
> >> There are only so many resources left on this planet, mainly oil for
> > energy,
> >> also water etc..
> >> With China's population growing leaps and bounds over our measly 260
> > million
> >> or so people. in about 10 to 20 years tops
> >> they will be fight for those remaining resources with everyone on the
> >> planet. Being we as Americans consume probably 20 fold
> >> if not more what other people do in resources, we would be the direct
> >> competitor for those resources.
> >> Darwinian forces will win out over diplomacy everytime when the future
of
> > a
> >> nation and race are at stake, don't kid yourself in thinking
> >> they'll sacrifice the lives of millions of their people to every one of
> > us,
> >> when divvying up what's left of the pie!
> >>
> >> They are for sure planning their survival against the super-power(being
> > us)
> >> from now, they'd be stupid not to.
> >> Unfortunately our leaders are too distracted at the moment to
concentrate
> >> and allocate resources at protecting our security from
> >> the Red internet attacks. According to the news, we can't just go their
> > and
> >> question people, and the Chinese government is being uncooperative.
> >>
> >> Also, with the fall of communism in Russia, our once rival will also
> > compete
> >> for resources just the same, as the communists that are left.
> >> Sure we can all be calm about it now, and worry about terrorism that
> >> might
> >> happen again, but our survival as a nation depends on our ability
> >> to secure not only our borders but our technology which is our only
> >> advantage to our survival some day. Unless you see some world
government
> >> where we all have one leader and all share the worlds resources evenly,
> >> that's what we have to protect against. 20 years will be here in the
> >> blink
> >> of an eye, and our children will think remember the good ol days before
> > all
> >> this?
> >>
> >> Hey sounds like a good book, no?
> >
> > And, fortunately, that's what is -- fiction. China is only nominally
> > Communist -- it is, at this point and in the economic sense, far more
> > capitalistic than the U.S. The US is China's biggest trading partner,
and
> > also an ally against Islamic expansionism (something that China is
> > troubled
> > with as well as the U.S.). The Chinese people themselves regard us as
> > friends, not potential enemies.
> >
> > China simply isn't a threat of any kind to us (except, perhaps,
> > economic --
> > they do capitalism better than we do), and has the potential to be
> > America's
> > greatest ally.
> >
>
> It's really naive to thing China isn't any threat to us. Why then, should
we
> not share all our military secrets with them openely?

For the same reason we don't share our military secrets with Canada, Britain
or South Africa -- they're military secrets, and one of the factors that
enables us to be a super power.

> Heck, let's show them how to make all our weapons systems, so they can
help
> us against islamic fundamentalists, NOT!

Talk about naive. Just what do you think China is planning? Alliances
between nations are always strategic. China has a significant problem on
its western border (you know -- where all those "stan" countries are) with
Islamic fanaticism. In other words, we have a common enemy. The US is
China's primary trading partner. In other words, we have an economic
interest in being friends. Putative governmental form labels aside, the
Chinese "ethic," emphasizing family, hard work, individual achievement,
education and collective self-sacrifice, is very compatible with its
American counterpart.

>
> They are considered and adversary, true fact, not an alley in any ones
book.

They are considered an adversary by whom? What do you actually know about
China (that's a rhetorical question, by the way)? Have you ever been there?
Spoken to government officials there? Met with business people, common
people, educators, professionals there?

>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/08/25/hackers.chi...

From the article you cited:

"The FBI and the Pentagon are investigating whether Chinese spies have been
hacking into U.S. government computer systems, U.S. officials said Thursday.
Officials are trying to determine whether the continuing hacking efforts are
sponsored by Beijing or merely involve hackers using Chinese Web sites to
mask their origins, they said."

1. Neither the FBI nor the Pentagon know whether it is China responsible
for this, or not. And neither do you.

2. Do you think the US doesn't spy on China? Do you think the US doesn't
spy on Britain?


> Also, China doesn't have our view own intellectual property rights and
> copyrights.

That's right -- China has a different philosophy with respect to ownership
of intellectual property, one that it recognizes will have to change if it
wants to participate on a world stage dominated (for the most part) by a
western view of IP ownership. How does this make China a threat to the US?

> That's why illegal movie DVD making goes on openly even with no government
> intervention.
> What about that point of view of theirs?

What about it? Are you aware that Chinese pirate Chinese IP as well as
western IP? As I said, it's a different philosophy and one that will have
to change, just as the US will have to change its insular and Machiavellian
view of government and human rights if it wishes to maintain its super-power
status.

>
> Remember most wars are fought over less divisive issues, civil wars are
> fought were people share national identity, race etc...
> countries become divided and wars errupt, so it is very naive to think a
> nation as China with hardly nothing in common with
> American traditions, values or morals( not that Chinese have no morals, in
> fact I respect theirs).

Sorry, but I don't think you know much about Chinese morality, much less
have respect for it. As I said earlier, Chinese values are very compatible
with American values and, interestingly enough, most Chinese seem very
interested in adopting western ideas, modes and styles. I'd recommend that
you visit China, sometime, and see the reality of the country, rather than
depend on distorted media and political demagogery.

> It's just that differences can someday find our two
> nations at odds with each other, especially when resources
> are used up. Heck, brothers fight for last piece of pie!

Brothers don't go to war for the last piece of pie. The issue for China
isn't lack of resources, but uncontrolled exploitation of those resources --
they have a much bigger problem with pollution than with resource shortages.
However, any two nations can find themselves at odds -- it is conceivable
that the US and Canada could be at each other's throats some day. However,
describing China as a threat to the US is simply ridiculous. As I said in
my earlier post, the US has real and readily definable enemies that are not
only potential threats, but have actually backed or mounted attacks on our
country. I am far more concerned about the threat they pose, then the
highly theoretical and entirely speculative threat that you ascribe to
China.

> What we all forget is resourses are limited, energy, food and water is not
> unlimited, and people will fight to survive with each other one day.
> So that is not fiction. How soon, 20 years or 200 years, that would be
> fiction to give an exact date. True.
>
> And Yes, I agree, Chinese people themselves don't see us as a threat
> personally at the moment, but attitudes can change quickly when a man sees
> his family starving, 30 people living in a small room and hear that
> Americans are driving SUV's that burn more gas in a trip to the casino
than
> would be needed to power their cooking for a year.

Take a trip to Shanghai, sometime. In comparison to _any_ US city,
including New York, Shanghai is more modern, more prosperous and has a
better infrastructure. I don't know where you've gotten your impressions of
China, but they're simply wrong. Yes, there are very poor people in the
western agrarian sections of China. However, in the industrialized east,
China is approaching (and in many cases equalling or surpassing) an American
standard of living. Visit Beijing or Shenzhen, sometime, or even Guangzhou.


> How about the woman in Sudan who walk half a day to gather twigs to a make
a
> fire to cook, and most of the woman are raped on the journey with the
> government turning a blind eye. 90% of the men in that town were already
> killed (Darwinism at work), limited resources.

And Sudan allied itself with Bin Laden, is an Islamic state, and an avowed
enemy of the US. What has that to do with China?

>
> So globally we haven't felt it yet, but it's coming, unless a plague
> destroys half the worlds population, which has always helped limit
resource
> usage in the past. But with scientists finding vacines and preventing
nature
> from controlling the population, who knows what will save us.
> Maybe those billions spend on the space shuttle can be helpful, we can
build
> moon colonies. :) 
>
> AnthonyR.
>
>
August 27, 2005 3:36:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:3n9ki9Fhh69U1@individual.net...
>
> "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:bGMPe.19626$%w.8278@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>
>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3n904sFemi0U1@individual.net...
>> >
>> > "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:HsyPe.19586$%w.14173@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>> >
>> >> And true, most Americans think China isn't are enemy or would never
> plan
>> >> a
>> >> war with us, but think about this.
>> >> There are only so many resources left on this planet, mainly oil for
>> > energy,
>> >> also water etc..
>> >> With China's population growing leaps and bounds over our measly 260
>> > million
>> >> or so people. in about 10 to 20 years tops
>> >> they will be fight for those remaining resources with everyone on the
>> >> planet. Being we as Americans consume probably 20 fold
>> >> if not more what other people do in resources, we would be the direct
>> >> competitor for those resources.
>> >> Darwinian forces will win out over diplomacy everytime when the future
> of
>> > a
>> >> nation and race are at stake, don't kid yourself in thinking
>> >> they'll sacrifice the lives of millions of their people to every one
>> >> of
>> > us,
>> >> when divvying up what's left of the pie!
>> >>
>> >> They are for sure planning their survival against the
>> >> super-power(being
>> > us)
>> >> from now, they'd be stupid not to.
>> >> Unfortunately our leaders are too distracted at the moment to
> concentrate
>> >> and allocate resources at protecting our security from
>> >> the Red internet attacks. According to the news, we can't just go
>> >> their
>> > and
>> >> question people, and the Chinese government is being uncooperative.
>> >>
>> >> Also, with the fall of communism in Russia, our once rival will also
>> > compete
>> >> for resources just the same, as the communists that are left.
>> >> Sure we can all be calm about it now, and worry about terrorism that
>> >> might
>> >> happen again, but our survival as a nation depends on our ability
>> >> to secure not only our borders but our technology which is our only
>> >> advantage to our survival some day. Unless you see some world
> government
>> >> where we all have one leader and all share the worlds resources
>> >> evenly,
>> >> that's what we have to protect against. 20 years will be here in the
>> >> blink
>> >> of an eye, and our children will think remember the good ol days
>> >> before
>> > all
>> >> this?
>> >>
>> >> Hey sounds like a good book, no?
>> >
>> > And, fortunately, that's what is -- fiction. China is only nominally
>> > Communist -- it is, at this point and in the economic sense, far more
>> > capitalistic than the U.S. The US is China's biggest trading partner,
> and
>> > also an ally against Islamic expansionism (something that China is
>> > troubled
>> > with as well as the U.S.). The Chinese people themselves regard us as
>> > friends, not potential enemies.
>> >
>> > China simply isn't a threat of any kind to us (except, perhaps,
>> > economic --
>> > they do capitalism better than we do), and has the potential to be
>> > America's
>> > greatest ally.
>> >
>>
>> It's really naive to thing China isn't any threat to us. Why then, should
> we
>> not share all our military secrets with them openely?
>
> For the same reason we don't share our military secrets with Canada,
> Britain
> or South Africa -- they're military secrets, and one of the factors that
> enables us to be a super power.
>
>> Heck, let's show them how to make all our weapons systems, so they can
> help
>> us against islamic fundamentalists, NOT!
>
> Talk about naive. Just what do you think China is planning? Alliances
> between nations are always strategic. China has a significant problem on
> its western border (you know -- where all those "stan" countries are) with
> Islamic fanaticism. In other words, we have a common enemy. The US is
> China's primary trading partner. In other words, we have an economic
> interest in being friends. Putative governmental form labels aside, the
> Chinese "ethic," emphasizing family, hard work, individual achievement,
> education and collective self-sacrifice, is very compatible with its
> American counterpart.
>
>>
>> They are considered and adversary, true fact, not an alley in any ones
> book.
>
> They are considered an adversary by whom? What do you actually know about
> China (that's a rhetorical question, by the way)? Have you ever been
> there?
> Spoken to government officials there? Met with business people, common
> people, educators, professionals there?
>
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/08/25/hackers.chi...
>
> From the article you cited:
>
> "The FBI and the Pentagon are investigating whether Chinese spies have
> been
> hacking into U.S. government computer systems, U.S. officials said
> Thursday.
> Officials are trying to determine whether the continuing hacking efforts
> are
> sponsored by Beijing or merely involve hackers using Chinese Web sites to
> mask their origins, they said."
>
> 1. Neither the FBI nor the Pentagon know whether it is China responsible
> for this, or not. And neither do you.
>
> 2. Do you think the US doesn't spy on China? Do you think the US doesn't
> spy on Britain?
>
>
>> Also, China doesn't have our view own intellectual property rights and
>> copyrights.
>
> That's right -- China has a different philosophy with respect to ownership
> of intellectual property, one that it recognizes will have to change if it
> wants to participate on a world stage dominated (for the most part) by a
> western view of IP ownership. How does this make China a threat to the
> US?
>
>> That's why illegal movie DVD making goes on openly even with no
>> government
>> intervention.
>> What about that point of view of theirs?
>
> What about it? Are you aware that Chinese pirate Chinese IP as well as
> western IP? As I said, it's a different philosophy and one that will have
> to change, just as the US will have to change its insular and
> Machiavellian
> view of government and human rights if it wishes to maintain its
> super-power
> status.
>
>>
>> Remember most wars are fought over less divisive issues, civil wars are
>> fought were people share national identity, race etc...
>> countries become divided and wars errupt, so it is very naive to think a
>> nation as China with hardly nothing in common with
>> American traditions, values or morals( not that Chinese have no morals,
>> in
>> fact I respect theirs).
>
> Sorry, but I don't think you know much about Chinese morality, much less
> have respect for it. As I said earlier, Chinese values are very
> compatible
> with American values and, interestingly enough, most Chinese seem very
> interested in adopting western ideas, modes and styles. I'd recommend
> that
> you visit China, sometime, and see the reality of the country, rather than
> depend on distorted media and political demagogery.
>
>> It's just that differences can someday find our two
>> nations at odds with each other, especially when resources
>> are used up. Heck, brothers fight for last piece of pie!
>
> Brothers don't go to war for the last piece of pie. The issue for China
> isn't lack of resources, but uncontrolled exploitation of those
> resources --
> they have a much bigger problem with pollution than with resource
> shortages.
> However, any two nations can find themselves at odds -- it is conceivable
> that the US and Canada could be at each other's throats some day.
> However,
> describing China as a threat to the US is simply ridiculous. As I said in
> my earlier post, the US has real and readily definable enemies that are
> not
> only potential threats, but have actually backed or mounted attacks on our
> country. I am far more concerned about the threat they pose, then the
> highly theoretical and entirely speculative threat that you ascribe to
> China.
>
>> What we all forget is resourses are limited, energy, food and water is
>> not
>> unlimited, and people will fight to survive with each other one day.
>> So that is not fiction. How soon, 20 years or 200 years, that would be
>> fiction to give an exact date. True.
>>
>> And Yes, I agree, Chinese people themselves don't see us as a threat
>> personally at the moment, but attitudes can change quickly when a man
>> sees
>> his family starving, 30 people living in a small room and hear that
>> Americans are driving SUV's that burn more gas in a trip to the casino
> than
>> would be needed to power their cooking for a year.
>
> Take a trip to Shanghai, sometime. In comparison to _any_ US city,
> including New York, Shanghai is more modern, more prosperous and has a
> better infrastructure. I don't know where you've gotten your impressions
> of
> China, but they're simply wrong. Yes, there are very poor people in the
> western agrarian sections of China. However, in the industrialized east,
> China is approaching (and in many cases equalling or surpassing) an
> American
> standard of living. Visit Beijing or Shenzhen, sometime, or even
> Guangzhou.
>
>
>> How about the woman in Sudan who walk half a day to gather twigs to a
>> make
> a
>> fire to cook, and most of the woman are raped on the journey with the
>> government turning a blind eye. 90% of the men in that town were already
>> killed (Darwinism at work), limited resources.
>
> And Sudan allied itself with Bin Laden, is an Islamic state, and an avowed
> enemy of the US. What has that to do with China?
>
>>
>> So globally we haven't felt it yet, but it's coming, unless a plague
>> destroys half the worlds population, which has always helped limit
> resource
>> usage in the past. But with scientists finding vacines and preventing
> nature
>> from controlling the population, who knows what will save us.
>> Maybe those billions spend on the space shuttle can be helpful, we can
> build
>> moon colonies. :) 
>>
>> AnthonyR.
>>
>>
>
>
Hi PTravel.
I guess the old expression you can't argue with a lawyer holds true.
I agree with you that I have never been to China, and so probably only have
views
from what i see on tv, true.
You make all very good points, and that link was so watered down from
original CNN broad cast that
had an expert on China affairs stake his reputation the government was
training cyber spies on how
to enter our systems for years now.
I have nothing against the Chinese, in fact i have nothing against all
people including Muslims.
I think every human has the right to live his life as they see fit, as long
as they don't injure others.
And because islamic fundamentalists have hijacked the Muslim religion to
defend their cause, I don't condem
the billions of Muslims that live a peaceful life, have children and lives
as they have just as much right to live
on this planet as anyone else.
So too have Christian fundamentalists hijacked the Christian religion and
turned a peaceful message of love and acceptance into
their vision on how people should live by piecing together clips from the
bible to suit their agenda.

I don't plan a long back and forth, for I agree and hope you are right that
the Chinese will long be our friends.
I find it funny however you an't conceed a simple fact that brothers could
fight?
Didn't someone in the bible kill his brother? Heck, give 3 kids 8 slices of
pizza and see what happens.
But true, it depends on individuals, some kids will intelligently slice the
remaining pieces evenly, other will
eat quickly to get the extra piece eaten before the other acknowledge what
happenned, it's all individualism.

I've seen families (and as a lawyer, you should know a few) that no longer
speak to each other after bad probate settlements.
Money, greed, land, honor? You don't think people fight over these things?
Didn't entire nations go to war over the honor of a woman?
I think the have been more wars in history than you can count on your
fingers, yet you don't see my point that brothers can fight of last piece of
pie?
Meaning, fight over resources.
And you not once mentioned limited earth resources, they say oil will run
out completely in 20 years, and economies will grind to a halt.
It's not going to be smiles and joy and then, oops we're out of oil, sorry.
No, it's going to be war on who controls the worlds oil supply, oh wait,
that's what is actually happenning now, isn't it?

And that the real reason those people hate us, since we use resources from
their land, I think?
I'm no world expert, again, only what I see on tv. and i just wanted to stir
up a little more serious debate than whether
some guy can copy his 20 year old vhs tape and sleep soundly at night
because he is considered immoral by legal experts.

I wish peace and love to all!
:) 

AnthonyR.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 3:36:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:D INPe.19639$%w.19088@twister.nyc.rr.com...

> Hi PTravel.
> I guess the old expression you can't argue with a lawyer holds true.

Oh, you can argue. The question is, will you win? ;) 

> I agree with you that I have never been to China, and so probably only
have
> views
> from what i see on tv, true.

Please don't take my discussion personally -- this is somewhat of a pet
peeve for me, as I find a lot of people, including those who should know
better, such as our State Department and the news media, have a rather
distorted understanding of the PRC. By a series of events, I found myself
in a position, about 12 years ago, to have a lot of professional, business
and social involvement with China (I even wound up marrying a Chinese
woman). I tend to jump on posts which perpetuate what I have come to know
as inaccurate stereotypes of the country.

> You make all very good points, and that link was so watered down from
> original CNN broad cast that
> had an expert on China affairs stake his reputation the government was
> training cyber spies on how
> to enter our systems for years now.
> I have nothing against the Chinese, in fact i have nothing against all
> people including Muslims.
> I think every human has the right to live his life as they see fit, as
long
> as they don't injure others.

Those are the words I live by.

> And because islamic fundamentalists have hijacked the Muslim religion to
> defend their cause, I don't condem
> the billions of Muslims that live a peaceful life, have children and lives
> as they have just as much right to live
> on this planet as anyone else.

I certainly don't condemn Islaam, or all Muslims, for the acts of the
fanatics. However, I do condemn, without question, countries like Saudi
Arabia, Syria, and the Sudan (and, of course, Afghanistan, under the
Taliban) who have either acted or conspired to cause direct and deliberate
harm to the U.S. and its citizens. I do condemn those specific adherents of
Islaam (which is not all Muslims, but, it would seem, a growing number), who
condone the acts of the violent fanatics, or who would impose, at the point
of a gun, their beliefs on those who don't hold them.

> So too have Christian fundamentalists hijacked the Christian religion and
> turned a peaceful message of love and acceptance into
> their vision on how people should live by piecing together clips from the
> bible to suit their agenda.

Yep, exactly!

>
> I don't plan a long back and forth, for I agree and hope you are right
that
> the Chinese will long be our friends.
> I find it funny however you an't conceed a simple fact that brothers could
> fight?

I grew up an only child, but I was particularly close to my cousin who is a
year younger than I. We did, indeed, fight. We did not, however, every go
to war. Countries can spat, and indeed, we spat with a number of our
allies. War, though, is serious business and should be reserved for those
who seek to do us harm, e.g. Afghanistan under the Taliban.

> Didn't someone in the bible kill his brother?

Those were the initial reports, yes, but weren't confirmed by independent
sources. ;) 

> Heck, give 3 kids 8 slices of
> pizza and see what happens.
> But true, it depends on individuals, some kids will intelligently slice
the
> remaining pieces evenly, other will
> eat quickly to get the extra piece eaten before the other acknowledge what
> happenned, it's all individualism.
>
> I've seen families (and as a lawyer, you should know a few) that no longer
> speak to each other after bad probate settlements.

Fortunately, all of my clients are businesses that have disputes with other
businesses. I'm very thankful that I don't do family law, personal injury
law or criminal law.

> Money, greed, land, honor? You don't think people fight over these things?
> Didn't entire nations go to war over the honor of a woman?

Again, the initial reports indicated that was so, but were not confirmed.
Countries [usually] go to war for very complex reasons. Without piling up
digressions into an already-off-topic thread, a country [usually] won't
undertake a war if it doesn't see an ultimate, tangible and identifiable
benefit for doing so. Recovering Helen doesn't sound like a terribly
compelling reason for a war. Obtaining trade or military advantages seems
more so.

> I think the have been more wars in history than you can count on your
> fingers, yet you don't see my point that brothers can fight of last piece
of
> pie?
> Meaning, fight over resources.

Sure, wars have been fought, and may be fought again, over resources.
However, I just don't see that as being a significant issue as between the
US and the PRC, at least for the foreseeable future.

> And you not once mentioned limited earth resources, they say oil will run
> out completely in 20 years, and economies will grind to a halt.
> It's not going to be smiles and joy and then, oops we're out of oil,
sorry.
> No, it's going to be war on who controls the worlds oil supply, oh wait,
> that's what is actually happenning now, isn't it?

I sincerely hope that no wars will be fought over oil (or, perhaps I should
say, "no more wars"). Both the US and China have the ability to develop
alternate energy sources, and I hope both devote their resources to doing
so.

>
> And that the real reason those people hate us, since we use resources from
> their land, I think?

I assume that, by "those people" you mean the Arab nations. Honestly? No.
I think they hate us for a variety of reasons. They hate us ("us" meaning
the West) because of centuries of economic and cultural imperialism. They
hate us because they are fed a steady diet of propaganda and misinformation
as to our beliefs and goals. They hate us because _they_ are religious
imperialists and we resist the export of their religious beliefs. And,
finally, they hate us because of our selectivity in employing our military
might, which, perhaps understandably, they take personally.

> I'm no world expert, again, only what I see on tv. and i just wanted to
stir
> up a little more serious debate than whether
> some guy can copy his 20 year old vhs tape and sleep soundly at night
> because he is considered immoral by legal experts.

Not immoral -- morality has nothing to do with it.
>
> I wish peace and love to all!
> :) 

Same here.

>
> AnthonyR.
>
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 3:36:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTravel" wrote ...
> Please don't take my discussion personally -- this is somewhat of a
> pet
> peeve for me, as I find a lot of people, including those who should
> know
> better, such as our State Department and the news media, have a rather
> distorted understanding of the PRC. By a series of events, I found
> myself
> in a position, about 12 years ago, to have a lot of professional,
> business
> and social involvement with China (I even wound up marrying a Chinese
> woman). I tend to jump on posts which perpetuate what I have come to
> know
> as inaccurate stereotypes of the country.

I hope you're right. But I don't think you are.
Time will tell.
August 27, 2005 7:37:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11gvf99g8nrj58e@corp.supernews.com...
> "AnthonyR" wrote ...
>> As an example, I'll say I know people who are 100 % Christian
>> fundamentalists and take offense to the slightest sense of immorality,
>> abortion issues, etc... Yet they see nothing wrong with copying a show or
>> movie they like to
>> share with all their friends. Interesting isn't it?
>
> You have my full permission and cooperation in pointing
> out their hypocritical behavior.
>
> I would seriously question the "100% Christian"
> characterization. To their face if necessary.

Hi Richard,
Hmm, I've thought about your reply, and wonder, since Jesus himself gave up
all his worldly possesions
and preached love, how much he would punish someone printing copyrighted
work back then?
Since they didn't have dvd players.
So like P.Travel said it's more a legal issue, not sure being 100% Christian
automatically puts you
on any legal side per say, since our copyright laws were not written by God.
But I get your meaning, they they should respect copyright holders and do
them no harm.

:) 

AnthonyR.
August 27, 2005 7:37:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:3n9q0hFiedlU1@individual.net...
>
> "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:D INPe.19639$%w.19088@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>> Hi PTravel.
>> I guess the old expression you can't argue with a lawyer holds true.
>
> Oh, you can argue. The question is, will you win? ;) 
>
>> I agree with you that I have never been to China, and so probably only
> have
>> views
>> from what i see on tv, true.
>
> Please don't take my discussion personally -- this is somewhat of a pet
> peeve for me, as I find a lot of people, including those who should know
> better, such as our State Department and the news media, have a rather
> distorted understanding of the PRC. By a series of events, I found myself
> in a position, about 12 years ago, to have a lot of professional, business
> and social involvement with China (I even wound up marrying a Chinese
> woman). I tend to jump on posts which perpetuate what I have come to know
> as inaccurate stereotypes of the country.
>
>> You make all very good points, and that link was so watered down from
>> original CNN broad cast that
>> had an expert on China affairs stake his reputation the government was
>> training cyber spies on how
>> to enter our systems for years now.
>> I have nothing against the Chinese, in fact i have nothing against all
>> people including Muslims.
>> I think every human has the right to live his life as they see fit, as
> long
>> as they don't injure others.
>
> Those are the words I live by.
>
>> And because islamic fundamentalists have hijacked the Muslim religion to
>> defend their cause, I don't condem
>> the billions of Muslims that live a peaceful life, have children and
>> lives
>> as they have just as much right to live
>> on this planet as anyone else.
>
> I certainly don't condemn Islaam, or all Muslims, for the acts of the
> fanatics. However, I do condemn, without question, countries like Saudi
> Arabia, Syria, and the Sudan (and, of course, Afghanistan, under the
> Taliban) who have either acted or conspired to cause direct and deliberate
> harm to the U.S. and its citizens. I do condemn those specific adherents
> of
> Islaam (which is not all Muslims, but, it would seem, a growing number),
> who
> condone the acts of the violent fanatics, or who would impose, at the
> point
> of a gun, their beliefs on those who don't hold them.
>
>> So too have Christian fundamentalists hijacked the Christian religion and
>> turned a peaceful message of love and acceptance into
>> their vision on how people should live by piecing together clips from the
>> bible to suit their agenda.
>
> Yep, exactly!
>
>>
>> I don't plan a long back and forth, for I agree and hope you are right
> that
>> the Chinese will long be our friends.
>> I find it funny however you an't conceed a simple fact that brothers
>> could
>> fight?
>
> I grew up an only child, but I was particularly close to my cousin who is
> a
> year younger than I. We did, indeed, fight. We did not, however, every
> go
> to war. Countries can spat, and indeed, we spat with a number of our
> allies. War, though, is serious business and should be reserved for those
> who seek to do us harm, e.g. Afghanistan under the Taliban.
>
>> Didn't someone in the bible kill his brother?
>
> Those were the initial reports, yes, but weren't confirmed by independent
> sources. ;) 
>
>> Heck, give 3 kids 8 slices of
>> pizza and see what happens.
>> But true, it depends on individuals, some kids will intelligently slice
> the
>> remaining pieces evenly, other will
>> eat quickly to get the extra piece eaten before the other acknowledge
>> what
>> happenned, it's all individualism.
>>
>> I've seen families (and as a lawyer, you should know a few) that no
>> longer
>> speak to each other after bad probate settlements.
>
> Fortunately, all of my clients are businesses that have disputes with
> other
> businesses. I'm very thankful that I don't do family law, personal injury
> law or criminal law.
>
>> Money, greed, land, honor? You don't think people fight over these
>> things?
>> Didn't entire nations go to war over the honor of a woman?
>
> Again, the initial reports indicated that was so, but were not confirmed.
> Countries [usually] go to war for very complex reasons. Without piling up
> digressions into an already-off-topic thread, a country [usually] won't
> undertake a war if it doesn't see an ultimate, tangible and identifiable
> benefit for doing so. Recovering Helen doesn't sound like a terribly
> compelling reason for a war. Obtaining trade or military advantages seems
> more so.
>
>> I think the have been more wars in history than you can count on your
>> fingers, yet you don't see my point that brothers can fight of last piece
> of
>> pie?
>> Meaning, fight over resources.
>
> Sure, wars have been fought, and may be fought again, over resources.
> However, I just don't see that as being a significant issue as between the
> US and the PRC, at least for the foreseeable future.
>
>> And you not once mentioned limited earth resources, they say oil will run
>> out completely in 20 years, and economies will grind to a halt.
>> It's not going to be smiles and joy and then, oops we're out of oil,
> sorry.
>> No, it's going to be war on who controls the worlds oil supply, oh wait,
>> that's what is actually happenning now, isn't it?
>
> I sincerely hope that no wars will be fought over oil (or, perhaps I
> should
> say, "no more wars"). Both the US and China have the ability to develop
> alternate energy sources, and I hope both devote their resources to doing
> so.
>
>>
>> And that the real reason those people hate us, since we use resources
>> from
>> their land, I think?
>
> I assume that, by "those people" you mean the Arab nations. Honestly?
> No.
> I think they hate us for a variety of reasons. They hate us ("us" meaning
> the West) because of centuries of economic and cultural imperialism. They
> hate us because they are fed a steady diet of propaganda and
> misinformation
> as to our beliefs and goals. They hate us because _they_ are religious
> imperialists and we resist the export of their religious beliefs. And,
> finally, they hate us because of our selectivity in employing our military
> might, which, perhaps understandably, they take personally.
>
>> I'm no world expert, again, only what I see on tv. and i just wanted to
> stir
>> up a little more serious debate than whether
>> some guy can copy his 20 year old vhs tape and sleep soundly at night
>> because he is considered immoral by legal experts.
>
> Not immoral -- morality has nothing to do with it.
>>
>> I wish peace and love to all!
>> :) 
>
> Same here.
>
>>
>> AnthonyR.
>>
>>
>
>
P.Travel,
Thanks for the reply, very diplomatic ending to a way off topic thread. :) 
AnthonyR.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 7:37:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" wrote ...
> Hmm, I've thought about your reply, and wonder, since
> Jesus himself gave up all his worldly possesions and
> preached love, how much he would punish someone
> printing copyrighted work back then?

The Gospels are full of examples of respect for private
property rights. For example, the Rich Young Ruler (i.e.
"yuppie") was advised to donate his assets to the poor,
but he refused and Jesus did not force him. When Matthew
was called to be a disciple, he gave up his job with the
IRS and vowed to repay all the excess taxes he had
swindled people out of. Many more. Read on.

> Since they didn't have dvd players.
> So like P.Travel said it's more a legal issue, not sure being
> 100% Christian automatically puts you on any legal side per
> say, since our copyright laws were not written by God.

IMHO, Christians are obliged to be law-abiding citizens.

> But I get your meaning, they they should respect copyright
> holders and do them no harm.

Mat 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits."
August 28, 2005 8:23:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11gvsc16e69bb81@corp.supernews.com...
> "AnthonyR" wrote ...
>> Hmm, I've thought about your reply, and wonder, since Jesus himself gave
>> up all his worldly possesions and preached love, how much he would punish
>> someone printing copyrighted work back then?
>
> The Gospels are full of examples of respect for private
> property rights. For example, the Rich Young Ruler (i.e.
> "yuppie") was advised to donate his assets to the poor,
> but he refused and Jesus did not force him. When Matthew
> was called to be a disciple, he gave up his job with the
> IRS and vowed to repay all the excess taxes he had
> swindled people out of. Many more. Read on.
>
>> Since they didn't have dvd players.
>> So like P.Travel said it's more a legal issue, not sure being
>> 100% Christian automatically puts you on any legal side per
>> say, since our copyright laws were not written by God.
>
> IMHO, Christians are obliged to be law-abiding citizens.
>
>> But I get your meaning, they they should respect copyright
>> holders and do them no harm.
>
> Mat 7:20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits."

Richard,
I get you...it's our right to have our copy rights protected and I don't get
so upset
when people copy tv shows either off air, or from previously purchased vhs
tapes
to dvd for personal collections because chances are they wouldn't have
bought the
DVD's if even available anyway, unless they could afford to. If they did
afford them they wouldn't bother
doing all that work. I don't know anyone with extra cash who would rather do
work when they didn't have to.
Afford, and EXTRA being key words, someone struggling to pay bills and buy
food isn't going to
purchase DVD's no matter what, so no REAL lost sale there.
If someone can afford a DVD collection, then they buy it, surely, it's
easier than
converting from vhs to dvd, all that trouble to save a few bucks.

As I was saying that upsets me a lot less than what I seen tonight and every
night while out eating dinner.
A man selling DVD's of current movies in the theater now (bootleg quality)
for $5 each,
less than the price of a movie! So that surely directly impacts our income,
cause if they see the movie
for $5 (which isn't going to any royalties at all) they won't go pay again
to see it in the movie theater!
That is sooo wrong, and what's worse is they walk around openly selling them
on the street.
In NYC, you can find illegal DVD vendors on many streets and they are making
a living off selling these bootleg
copies, and NOT being arrested, not being fined $50,000 per title
etc...cause if they were, they wouldn't still
be out there doing this day after day, year after year...
Why don't the studios go after these people?

Wouldn't a $50,000 fine cover an officers yearly paycheck? So he would only
have to catch and prosicute one guy a year
to cover his salary! So we could hire more and more officers until
eventually there were no more street vendors
to sustain at least one arrest a year. Doesn't that make sense?
Or I guess, in reality, these people would get caught, fined, not have any
money, get sent to jail and cost us taxpayers $50,000
a year feeding them for ten year sentence per movie Hhmmm?

Makes sense now why they aren't arresting them, it's cheaper to
allow them to continue selling them than fill our prisons. But then that's
what makes others feel unfairly treated.
They think well if a guy on the street can do this openly every day and get
away with it, and make money at it, then why
would they come after me? who only makes a few copies for myself and don't
sell them.

That in a nutshell is why people copy, they feel a victim of selective
prosecution. A law must be fair and just and equally dispensed, not
only when economically feasible. Just thought I'd throw this out their
before bed, and see what others think of
illegal street vendors not being arrested and fined more. Or are they and
it's just too big a problem?
How is it I see them at almost every busy corner?

AnthonyR.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 8:23:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" wrote ...
> That in a nutshell is why people copy, they feel a victim of selective
> prosecution. A law must be fair and just and equally dispensed, not
> only when economically feasible. Just thought I'd throw this out their
> before bed, and see what others think of
> illegal street vendors not being arrested and fined more. Or are they
> and it's just too big a problem?
> How is it I see them at almost every busy corner?

Some of us continue that quaint belief in right/wrong
that is not situational or relative.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 8:23:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11h2juej1039l73@corp.supernews.com...
> "AnthonyR" wrote ...
>> That in a nutshell is why people copy, they feel a victim of selective
>> prosecution. A law must be fair and just and equally dispensed, not
>> only when economically feasible. Just thought I'd throw this out their
>> before bed, and see what others think of
>> illegal street vendors not being arrested and fined more. Or are they and
>> it's just too big a problem?
>> How is it I see them at almost every busy corner?
>
> Some of us continue that quaint belief in right/wrong
> that is not situational or relative.

Then craft laws that make this possible. You live in a dream world.

Did you ever exceed the speed limit...just for a little bit?

Did you ever jaywalk?

Did you ever cross as a pedestrian while the light was just red? ($50 fine)

Did you ever play a saxophone in the evening (Kansas City law still on the
books...yet Charlie Parker originated there)?
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 12:17:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Alpha" wrote...
> Then craft laws that make this possible. You live in a dream world.
>
> Did you ever exceed the speed limit...just for a little bit?
>
> Did you ever jaywalk?
>
> Did you ever cross as a pedestrian while the light was just red? ($50
> fine)
>
> Did you ever play a saxophone in the evening (Kansas City law still on
> the books...yet Charlie Parker originated there)?

So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to commit murder?
So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to hold up the convenience
store?
So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to shoplift?
So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to .....
Exactly where do *YOU* draw the line?

Alas, this is the kind of relativistic mush that passes for philosophy
these days. My condolences.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 5:16:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11h3lbu633i6c58@corp.supernews.com...
> "Alpha" wrote...
>> Then craft laws that make this possible. You live in a dream world.
>>
>> Did you ever exceed the speed limit...just for a little bit?
>>
>> Did you ever jaywalk?
>>
>> Did you ever cross as a pedestrian while the light was just red? ($50
>> fine)
>>
>> Did you ever play a saxophone in the evening (Kansas City law still on
>> the books...yet Charlie Parker originated there)?
>
> So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to commit murder?
> So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to hold up the convenience
> store?
> So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to shoplift?
> So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to .....
> Exactly where do *YOU* draw the line

You did not understand the point at all. The line is a continuum between
values. You see nothing but a binary state.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 1:49:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11h3lbu633i6c58@corp.supernews.com...
> "Alpha" wrote...
>> Then craft laws that make this possible. You live in a dream world.
>>
>> Did you ever exceed the speed limit...just for a little bit?
>>
>> Did you ever jaywalk?
>>
>> Did you ever cross as a pedestrian while the light was just red? ($50
>> fine)
>>
>> Did you ever play a saxophone in the evening (Kansas City law still on
>> the books...yet Charlie Parker originated there)?
>
> So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to commit murder?
> So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to hold up the convenience
> store?
> So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to shoplift?
> So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to .....
> Exactly where do *YOU* draw the line?
>
> Alas, this is the kind of relativistic mush that passes for philosophy
> these days. My condolences.

> "Alpha" wrote...
>> Then craft laws that make this possible. You live in a dream world.
>>
>> Did you ever exceed the speed limit...just for a little bit?
>>
>> Did you ever jaywalk?
>>
>> Did you ever cross as a pedestrian while the light was just red? ($50
>> fine)
>>
>> Did you ever play a saxophone in the evening (Kansas City law still on
>> the books...yet Charlie Parker originated there)?
>
> So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to commit murder?
> So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to hold up the convenience
> store?
> So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to shoplift?
> So because people jaywalk, it should be OK to .....
> Exactly where do *YOU* draw the line?
>
> Alas, this is the kind of relativistic mush that passes for philosophy
> these days. My condolences.

I'm not defending copyright infringement. Nor do I have much truck with
moral relativism. But...

You appear to assume all laws are moral. They are not.

I do not believe Jesus would have a problem with individuals breaking an
immoral law, such as one that supported apartheid or state discrimination
for instance. He was not an entirely law-abiding individual. The
money-lenders in the temple were within their LEGAL rights.

And frankly the idea of him as a proud upholder of copyright laws strikes me
as a bit
too absurd for words.
!