About DRM protected music that you have purchased

[nightflier]

Slump,

Um, with all due respect, laws that are unfair should be resisted. If our founding fathers had been as law-abiding as you, we would still be paying taxes to a queen in England.

And for the record, I have no idea whether Snoop is "a spammer pedalling a program out of Ukraine," but that is a harsh accusation.

[Mike Anderson]

Um, intellectual property rights are a constitutional rights too.

Only as against takings by a state actor. This has nothing to do with private parties stealing intellectual property.

[SlumpBuster]

Only as against takings by a state actor. This has nothing to do with private parties stealing intellectual property.

There is more to the Constitution then the Amendments. Article 1 Section 8 specifically authorized the legislature "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." That is the constitutional foundation of the Copyright Act and by extention the DMCA.

[Mike Anderson]

There is more to the Constitution then the Amendments. Article 1 Section 8 specifically authorized the legislature "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." That is the constitutional foundation of the Copyright Act and by extention the DMCA.

All that does is give Congress the jurisdiction to legislate it; that does NOT elevate intellectual property rights to the status of a "constitutional right" held by individuals as against private parties. That's a critical distinction.

For example, Congress could pass a law tomorrow completely rescinding the Copyright Act, or the DMCA. By contrast, it could NOT pass a law allowing for takings of property by a state actor in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because that would violate individuals' constitutional rights.

[Geoffcin]

All that does is give Congress the jurisdiction to legislate it; that does NOT elevate intellectual property rights to the status of a "constitutional right" held by individuals as against private parties. That's a critical distinction.

For example, Congress could pass a law tomorrow completely rescinding the Copyright Act, or the DMCA. By contrast, it could NOT pass a law allowing for takings of property by a state actor in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because that would violate individuals' constitutional rights.

But it would have to be an amendment to the constitution recending the Fifth Amendment,
AND it would have to be ratified by a 38 state majority for it to become law. That being said, the sad fact is that lately the powers that be have walked all over the Constitution, some of them in our goverment even calling it "that damn piece of paper!" (it's actually on parchment)

[SlumpBuster]

Slump,

Um, with all due respect, laws that are unfair should be resisted. If our founding fathers had been as law-abiding as you, we would still be paying taxes to a queen in England.

And for the record, I have no idea whether Snoop is "a spammer pedalling a program out of Ukraine," but that is a harsh accusation.

The founding fathers were railing against a monarchy and a parliment in which they had no representation. Your talking about disagreeing with properly enacted legislation. No revolution is necessary; just vote instead.

As for the OP Snoop being a spammer hawking a program out of Ukraine, click the link. It is quite clearly a program from ukraine. OP's first post was about said program. Smoke + Fire = Spam.