Law Vs Lawlessness. Attn: Rick C. Hodgin
unit6502
I have addressed this message to you in hopes that it may
offer you some enlightenment regarding the need for
consistent and universal copyright laws. Also, and more
importantly, I'm saddened by your blunt dismissal of Dr
John Stockton's comments, and I hope you will see fit to
make amends.
In this post, I will be utilizing quotes from both yourself
and Dr Stockton garnered from another thread.
Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>Are you people really so anal that you'd go to the extreme
>of presenting the copyright laws on usenet postings...
How can we choose butt be 'anal' when 'the law is an ass'?
"For every idle word men may speak, they will give account
of it in the day of judgement." [Matthew 12:36]
If God considers our words to be so important that He subjects
each one of them to judgement, should we not also treat our
words with likewise significance -- however or wherever they
may be uttered?
Dr John Stockton wrote:
>The body is the author's construction; it is that to which
>copyright applies.
Rick C. Hodgin replied:
>You'll have to excuse me for a moment. I'll be over in the
>corner laughing hysterically!!! heheheheehehe :)
Copyright laws are no laughing matter; in fact, they may one
day prove to be your friend. As a software developer, would
you relish the prospect of trying to sell your ligitimate product
in a country possessing a 90+% piracy rate? (You're probably
thinking, 'that's an entirely different situation' -- but is it?)
Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>I find it absolutely impossible to believe that anything posted
>on usenet would be subject to copyright laws, international or
>otherwise.
Here is the need for universal copyright laws: Suppose that
Usenet was exempt from copyright laws; now, suppose that
you were an honest, hard-working, successful businessman;
then, some unscrupulous character utilized the Internet to
spread false and damaging rumours about you and your
business, thereby causing you to lose revenue and your
reputation, would you not want recourse under the law?
Unfortunately, the law has been handicapped by its exception
of Usenet coverage. You see, since the law does not apply to
Usenet, the posters are not owners (copyright holders) of their
posts, and, therefore, not liable for those posts: It's a legal
loophole -- caused by selectively applying the law.
Dr. John Stockton wrote:
>The law is the law, and should be respected even where the
>breach would not be worth troubling the courts about.
Rick C. Hodgin replied:
>Your attitude and positions exemplify the problems permeating
>modern society today. Too much book law and not enough
>common sense.
Define 'common sense'. (Uhh, better bring back those lawyers
we just fired.) See the problem? I think it was Thomas Payne
who said: "The only thing common about common sense is its
uncommonness."
Dr Stockton is absolutely correct in his assertion: The law must
guarantee justice for all -- regardless of the perceived frivolity
of a particular case. Refusing to apply the law fully and competely
to each and every case results in a multi-standard system.
That being said, I understand your frustration: The courts are
flooded with frivolous cases, placing a heavy burden on taxpayers,
and degrading society in general. However, it's a hasty and
emotional response to say, 'Kill all the lawyers'.
Here is Jesus's solution to petty cases: "If anyone wants to
sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also."
[Matthew 5:40] Here's the point: Life is too short and too
precious to waste on petty things. Unfortunately, modern
society has an obsession with pettiness; and laws have to be
created to accomodate same. Pity.
Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>Get a life, Dr. John Stockton.
Why do you choose to betray your IQ to the entire world?
In my estimation, Dr John Stockton possesses exceptionally
high intelligence, as witnessed by his understanding of the
need for absolute laws -- no matter how petty they may
appear; the need for the universal application of those laws;
and the need for equitable retribution under those laws.
In conclusion: A civilized society requires consistent and
universal laws; anything less leads to confusion; confusion
leads to lawlessness; lawlessness leads to chaos; chaos
ends in destruction.
--
Rebuke a wise man,
And he will discern knowledge.
[from Proverbs]
Rick C. Hodgin
Greetings, Unit6502.
>I have addressed this message to you in hopes that it may
>offer you some enlightenment regarding the need for
>consistent and universal copyright laws.
I understand the need for copyright laws. But they are being taken to
extremes in the manner Dr. John Stockton is suggesting.
>"For every idle word men may speak, they will give account
>of it in the day of judgement." [Matthew 12:36]
>
>If God considers our words to be so important that He subjects
>each one of them to judgement, should we not also treat our
>words with likewise significance -- however or wherever they
>may be uttered?
I choose my words carefully. There are times when a post quickly
escapes my fingers in a moment of haste. But for the most part, and
in this instance, I considered my thoughts for a time before sending.
And, FWIW, were I placed before God I feel secure in my thoughts and
actions and I would welcome debate with him regarding this matter.
>Copyright laws are no laughing matter; in fact, they may one
>day prove to be your friend.
I understand why copyright laws exist. I recognize the need for
copyrighting content and I'm sure there are thousands of equitable
cases each year which rely on these laws and end up being, quite
correctly, addressed before the court.
But to the degree Dr. John Stockton is proposing they be carried out
is unequivocally ridiculous. Those laws absolutely *DO NOT* exist to
keep moderators from being able to legally append a tagline to all
messages posted to a moderated usenet newsgroup, especially when the
inclusion of such a tagline would be equal and universal.
>Here is the need for universal copyright laws: Suppose that
>Usenet was exempt from copyright laws; now, suppose that
>you were an honest, hard-working, successful businessman;
>then, some unscrupulous character utilized the Internet to
>spread false and damaging rumours about you and your
>business, thereby causing you to lose revenue and your
>reputation, would you not want recourse under the law?
This instance would be covered under the public slander laws. The
copyright laws would be of no importance or significance in this
instance. But, I do understand what you're suggesting.
>Unfortunately, the law has been handicapped by its exception
>of Usenet coverage. You see, since the law does not apply to
>Usenet, the posters are not owners (copyright holders) of their
>posts, and, therefore, not liable for those posts: It's a legal
>loophole -- caused by selectively applying the law.
The purpose of the court, at least in the United States, is to
interpret the laws. There are other laws on the books that would
cover such cases, and where they do not exist then the judge is free
to use the "spirit of the law" in his ruling.
This concept is something we've gotten away from in this country over
the past 226 years. Things do not always need to be spelled out
exactly to accommodate all instances. The spirit of what the law was
attempting to accomplish can be enough to cover areas that are not
directly handled by specific wording or legal precedent.
Look at The Constitution of the United States. It speaks in grander
terms. It recognizes that the founding fathers did not know
everything and as a result they did not close any doors to future
interpretation. They did this by leaving the wording intentionally
sparse in some instances.
It was recognized that the spirit of the document, as a whole, would
be enough to distinguish the intent of the law as it was originally
designed to be applied. It does not need to encompass all aspects of
every conceivable circumstance to be a good law. In fact, the best
laws are made up of the reverse. And, when challenged, are
interpreted by the court under the prevailing attitude of the day.
This is something we see continuously in our justice system here in
The United States.
>>Your attitude and positions exemplify the problems permeating
>>modern society today. Too much book law and not enough
>>common sense.
>
>Define 'common sense'.
The realization that anything done should not be done to harm another
individual. The realization that anything done should be done equally
and fairly and without malice or prejudice toward specific individuals
or groups of individuals. The realization that people sometimes make
mistakes and that they should be given the benefit of the doubt before
action is taken against them. The realization that laws designed to
hold people accountable for their writings do not preclude the
addition of uniform content by individuals residing in position
created for the sole purpose of fulfilling that end.
Do I need to go on? This is common sense. Everyone should have it.
The Bible teaches it. Our parents teach it. Our schools teach it.
Our friends teach it. The only body that doesn't teach it is the one
where you'll find all the lawyers.
>Dr Stockton is absolutely correct in his assertion: The law must
>guarantee justice for all
What justice is being served by keeping moderators from appending a
tagline to people's posts? And what harm is being done to those
individuals whose posts to this newsgroup see that addition?
The only people I've heard complaining about those taglines so far are
those that immediately cite copyright law in their defense. There's
no common sense there. No recognition that what the moderators were
trying to do is help people. No understanding that it was done in an
effort to provide information to those seeking it. Nothing of the
kind.
>regardless of the perceived frivolity of a particular case.
There are a multitude of sitting judges that would disagree with you.
There are levels of accountability that must be reached before legal
action is justifiable. The moderators of this newsgroup are guilty of
nothing even remotely approaching those levels. Any cases brought
before a judge on *THIS* matter would be dismissed in chambers without
one argument being heard.
>Refusing to apply the law fully and competely
>to each and every case results in a multi-standard system.
I am not suggesting that the law not be applied fully and completely.
I'm saying that it was never designed to be applicable to what the
moderators are proposing.
1) This is a moderated newsgroup. We forfeit certain rights when we
agree to participate. Period.
2) The moderators are not altering user content in any way. What
existed in the post before exists after the tagline is appended.
3) This newsgroup is voluntary.
4) This newsgroup is free.
5) There are other unmoderated assembly newsgroups available.
>>Get a life, Dr. John Stockton.
>Why do you choose to betray your IQ to the entire world?
Is that what I did? I'll have to remember that in case I ever want to
betray my IQ to the entire world again. :)
Those words were chosen to convey the levels of disrespect I have for
Dr. John Stockton's contention that usenet postings are copyrighted
material not to be touched in any way.
His comment to which I responded with those words related to a
statement he made about ending his post with a parenthesis to show
that all of his posts are being truncated by at least one character,
thereby creating a violation of international copyright laws. His
statement was anal and ridiculous and I responded in a commensurate
manner.
It is exactly that kind of frivolousness which makes it impossible for
people trying to do good in the world to succeed. Around every corner
there is a Dr. John Stockton waiting to push the letter of the law to
its unending purview. To see how far it can go and how righteous he
can become.
Suggesting that the international copyright laws exist in a manner
which serves to keep messages from being altered by the inclusion of a
tagline purporting something beneficial to the moderated newsgroup is
a violation of so many fundamental principles to which I hold dear
that I would be absolutely remiss in my duties as a human being to
allow it to pass without adding my personal comments against it.
>In my estimation, Dr John Stockton possesses exceptionally
>high intelligence, as witnessed by his understanding of the
>need for absolute laws
I would argue that anyone accepting the need for "absolute laws" is an
utter fool. Laws exist to guide us, to teach us. They exist to serve
a useful purpose. They exist to keep us from doing great harm to
ourselves and others. They exist to illustrate the cumulative
attitude of the society in which they exist. They do not exist for
the sake of being absolute.
When laws are applied in particular ways under various pretenses they
being to twist, then bend and finally end up undeniably altered. The
result is an achievement of something that can no longer be held with
respect to those high ideals your regard for the law aspires to reach.
What I see in Dr. John Stockton's interpretation of international
copyright laws is a twist. A bend. A modification of its original
spirit and a bastardization of the basic ideals to which it was
founded. The interpretation of that law to preclude activities the
moderators have been suggesting about the addition of a tagline
containing this newsgroup's FAQ is just one drop of water in the
seemingly infinite sea of frivolousness that exists everywhere in our
society today. It is something we do not need as a society. It is
something I feel very strongly about. And it is something I will
address whenever I have the opportunity to do so.
>no matter how petty they may
>appear; the need for the universal application of those laws;
>and the need for equitable retribution under those laws.
A profound statement. And I agree with you. But the levels to which
we agree are very different. You would take it to its extreme (as
your statement above describes about the need for absolute laws). I
would take it to its practical usefulness. Beyond that it becomes
frivolous and petty and serves only to degrade the society allowing it
to proliferate in that manner.
>In conclusion: A civilized society requires consistent and
>universal laws; anything less leads to confusion; confusion
>leads to lawlessness; lawlessness leads to chaos; chaos
>ends in destruction.
The bible says the world will end as you describe here. Perhaps it's
an inevitability?
- Rick C. Hodgin
Groman
highly offensive.
Please be more aware of other people around you.
> "For every idle word men may speak, they will give account
> of it in the day of judgement." [Matthew 12:36]
Alexei A. Frounze
this unlikely discussion? Why not just accept a little extra line at the
very bottom of the message and not flame? Is it somewhat complicated? Does
it change the words you post here?
--
Alexei A. Frounze
alexfru [AT] chat [DOT] ru
http://alexfru.chat.ru
http://members.xoom.com/alexfru/
http://welcome.to/pmode/
"unit6502" <frui...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2001021201...@odin.asgard...
> Greetings, Mr Hodgin:
Erik de Castro Lopo
>
> Greetings, Mr Hodgin:
>
<snip>
We bear witness to the birth of a Usenet Kook!
Erik
--
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nos...@mega-nerd.com (Yes its valid)
+----------------------------------------------------------+
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5
seconds." -- Linus Torvalds
Beth
I agree; Speaking as a Christian myself...
Please do not consider this to be characteristic of all Christians,
Groman...some of us actually read the bible to gain wisdom and not merely
knowledge...there is a difference, which 6502's comments so far fail to
convey...
The spirit of the law is paramount...NOT the letter of the law...he quotes
from a translated text, anyway, so to waste his time on such petty things as
individual words rather than the spirit of sharing and love seems to miss
the point entirely...ironically, the point he was arguing in regards petty
things...
Or, otherwise, God would not forgive transgressions of His law, would He,
6502? And forgiveness is as central to Christianity as you can get...I've
yet to see it practiced by anyone in this thread so far...but I hope it
will...
For instance, the "Word" (as in "the Word was with God" and "spread the
Word") has many possible translations from the original...one of which is
"spirit" or "soul"...
Thus, to "spread the Word" is to spread the spirit of love and compassion
that Jesus teaches...and NOT to quote parrot-fashion from a translated (and
incomplete) text, trying to bully your points over...
I see very little forgiveness, compassion, love or scarifice to most of the
comments made on this subject from either side...I see malice, selfish and
everyone trying to get the upper hand or the last word instead...
Unit6502, my neighbour..."Turn the other cheek"...
Rick, my friend...exercise the spirit of the law rather than debate its
letter...
Let us all reach consensus on what actions we should do to move forward in
this situation, yes?
Then we can ALL win in this matter...rather than just one of us by proving
superior intellect or whatever it is you're all trying to do here...think
win/win :)
Love,
Beth :)
Manuel Algora
wrote:
>>Greetings, Mr Hodgin:
>
>Greetings, Unit6502.
[some copyright snip-infringement]
>>"For every idle word men may speak, they will give account
>>of it in the day of judgement." [Matthew 12:36]
A talibanese woman made the "mistake" of considering herself a person,
which made her guilty by the law of mortals. On wrath's day, who shall
sit at God's right? Woman, or accuser?
In God we trust. Let the Lord be our judge!
Manuel Algora
cen...@wanadoo.es
Stargazer
> Greetings, Mr Hodgin:
>
> I have addressed this message to you in hopes that it may
> offer you some enlightenment regarding the need for
> consistent and universal copyright laws.
[...]
> "For every idle word men may speak, they will give account
> of it in the day of judgement." [Matthew 12:36]
May be you are not aware, but one of the major freedoms is Freedom
of Faith. E.g., according to Jewdaism, Jesus was not a prophet, he was
an impostor. Is it legitimate to bring up an evidence based on pure
YOUR faith?
[...]
> Dr Stockton is absolutely correct in his assertion: The law must
> guarantee justice for all -- regardless of the perceived frivolity
> of a particular case. Refusing to apply the law fully and competely
> to each and every case results in a multi-standard system.
Our world *is* a multi-standard system. It seems unlikely that we
can change it, we can only live with it. May be you're not aware, but
this is an international newsgroup. If you think that guarantee of
justice for all is possible - please suggest a universal law that will
stop the Middle East conflict.
AAMOF, I'm a bit surprised that your post got approved. It's off-topic,
it's personal and it may be found offensive.
/VD
Programming links at: -- http://phantom.urbis.net.il/bphantom --
Tripple DOS home at: --
http://phantom.urbis.net.il/bphantom/tridos.html --
Executing Inspector home at: -- http:/phantom.urbis.net.il/inspector --
-- I hate you and you hate me
And everybody smiles ---
[R.J. DIO]
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
unit6502
>Why did the fact that we lack such innocent things as FAQ
>reminders lead to this unlikely discussion?
One thing leads to another, which leads to another, which
leads to another, etc. That's the nature of public forums.
>Why not just accept a little extra line at the very bottom
>of the message and not flame?
No one is flaming anyone -- yet. Rick and I are merely
exchanging points of view on a particular subject matter.
>Is it somewhat complicated? Does it change the words
>you post here?
Neither Rick nor I have objected to the appending of the
FAQ link to the end of our posts, however, the group has
yet to decide on a particular method and format.
As you may know, the moderators stopped appending the
FAQ link to posts because it could easily be interpreted as
being part of the body of the message.
Cheers
Alexei A. Frounze
> Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> >Why did the fact that we lack such innocent things as FAQ
> >reminders lead to this unlikely discussion?
>
> One thing leads to another, which leads to another, which
> leads to another, etc. That's the nature of public forums.
OK. I thought there's some kind of strong objecttion about that line or
something. I never read all those war-messages closely - not a big deal. :)
> >Why not just accept a little extra line at the very bottom
> >of the message and not flame?
>
> No one is flaming anyone -- yet. Rick and I are merely
> exchanging points of view on a particular subject matter.
OK.
> >Is it somewhat complicated? Does it change the words
> >you post here?
>
> Neither Rick nor I have objected to the appending of the
> FAQ link to the end of our posts, however, the group has
> yet to decide on a particular method and format.
>
> As you may know, the moderators stopped appending the
> FAQ link to posts because it could easily be interpreted as
> being part of the body of the message.
There must be something like "See comp.lang.asm.x86 FAQ at ...". Short and
clear.
Good Luck