On 07/05/07, Stephen Bain
<stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/7/07, Todd Allen
<toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Exception 1, actually. It's short enough
that I can post the full text here.
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Communicating any methods or means for
circumventing copyright
protection, like communicating copyrighted material itself, is not
protected speech.
This is entirely false. The second part of your assertion is covered
by fair use (which can be up to 100% of the work quoted) and the first
part is not tested. As noted in the Felten case, the RIAA, when told
to shit or get off the pot, backpedaled so fast as to break the world
record for reverse circumnavigation by bicycle.
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Also note that the Constitution specifically gives Congress the
authority to issue copyrights, so it's obviously intended that some
restrictions on copyrighted speech are permissible. (Whether current
laws -actually- serve to "promote the progress of science and useful
arts" is left as an exercise for the reader, but that's a different
discussion.) No such authority is granted for restrictions on speech
about copyrights or the means used to enforce them, only on the
copyrighted material itself.
--
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.