noogoo vs. the copyright law

i started to reply and post at http://www.dslreports.com/forum/news,65757 against pirating. people still seem to think if someone wouldn't have bought a pirated item, the item should not count. they still seem to think there's no harm or no cost for them to have a copy.

arguments against pirating.

1. the original (usually) costs something to produce.
2. if you pirate an expensive copyrighted work, the less expensive work doesn't get bought or the open source projects dont get contributions.
3. it's the law. quit pirating and tell your representatives or go exercise or go do something else to help the economy.
4. you can live without it.
5. it's probably part of your isp's tos and you agreed to it.

also while participating i've thought of some stuff to help or mess with the copyright law. i'd like to know if anyone else has brought these up and what people say against them.

1. limit compensation. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13971263 - if time is money and there's a time limit for copyrights then a money limit should be the same. and if the government thinks minimum wage is enough for someone to live, then the money limit should equal the current time limit in hours multiplied by the minimum wage rate. also a money limit should failry motivate an artist to create more works.

2. if the CD you own isn't really yours to own and you only have a license to have one, then you should be allowed to return the CD anytime for a full refund or get an exchange. if they don't give you a refund, then you should be allowed to make as many copies. if they don't want you to make copies, then should buy it back from you. if it doesn't cost anything to make a digital copy, then it shouldn't cost them anything to refund and destroy a digital copy. if you don't agree with their license, and they are not agreeing to the license by not refunding, the license should be void and you do whatever you want with them. Go buy software half off and get a full msrp refund if they count the loss as a msrp.

seems like the fastest way to change or fix the law is to break the law and go to the supreme court.

maybe all you have to do is add "a news report, comment, or criticism" to the file name and use bittorrent. you may just have to watch out for the "value" part.

Generally speaking, one is not allowed to take the "value" of a song without permission, and sometimes that value is found even in a three-second clip. When in doubt, it is always wise to check with the copyright owner, because in many cases even a small clip of a song may not be "fair use."
http://www.riaa.com/issues/copyright/laws.asp#fair

first there was the misc.legal newgroup, then this blogspot blog, then dslreports' technology law and politics forum, and now bram cohen's live journal comment section. hopefully he or someone else will read it and we could find out if the loophole idea is really a loophole. still haven't had anyone question or challenge the fair use idea much.

sidenote: man, that white bar on top is bugging me.

edit: and one more. yep, i think that's what i'm looking for. a filesharing software that allows people to host files partially and distribute the partial file accompanied by a news report, comment, or criticism. also let's people find all the partial files accompanied by a news report, comment, or criticism.

i've had this idea for a long time now wondering if i should let it out or not, if it would make a big mess i didn't expect, or if i should implement this myself and get less poor. maybe bittorrent suees can sort of use this as a defense.

Here is an idea for legally file sharing: Fair Use.

More specifically, "a quotation from copyrighted material when the excerpt is used for teaching, research, news reporting, comment, criticism or parody."
(http://www.riaa.com/issues/copyright/laws.asp)

For example, a 3 minute song distributed over the internet from one location may violate the copyright law.

But what about a 3 minute song divided into 3 second clips, accompanied by a news report, comment, or criticism, distributed from 60 different locations?

under the alias noogoo, i want to test the copyright law. i want you to tell me your thoughts on my ideas for messing with the copyright law. tell me if they are legal or illegal, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, completely right or completely absurd.

i have copyright loophole ideas to legally share or fair use copyrighted material. i have copyright "entrapment" ideas to make money off of suing people or associations.

in the end, i want the copyright law to be fair and specific or abolished, legally or by the law itself, or do i?