Re: WIPO Treaty: Worse than CDA- Deadline 22 Nov 96

[attila@primenet.com]

In <199611110655.WAA23446@mail.pacifier.com>, on 11/10/96 
   at 10:50 PM, jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> said:

.Somebody must have said, once, that the winner in an argument is the one who 
.gets to define the terms.  Notice how the term "protect" and "protection" 
.are misused above. (not by Attila, of course; but by whomever he's quoting.)  

.However, the term "protect" has long been misused by lawyers in just such a 
.way.  "Monopolize" would be a more appropriate word under the circumstances.

        monopolized is actually too 'weak' a final description of the 
    results --how about 'absolute denial of information?'

        what itrigues me the most is the bill originated at the White 
    House!   I won't waste time preaching to the choir, but the
    original intent was to protect West Publishing's "keyed" and
    proofed legal reference material (in return for a a hefty campaign
    contribution, and who nows what else under the table...).  just
    because it is legal, does not make it moral.

        some lame-brain (probably DOJ and whitehouse political hacks)
    expressed the terms in the treaty bill so broadly that it is all inclusive --everything.

        this is a case of no speech at all....     goodbye information 
    age, hello darkness.

        of course, there is always the possibility that Bubba _desires_
    to crash the economy so he can declare martial law for his NWO
    mentor, George Bush.

                --attila

--
            Cyberspace and Freedom are Information.  
                FUCK your WIPO, too. 
                                                                -attila