XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: DrJamesSidbury@hotmail.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Jim Gysin  wrote:   
      
   > James Sidbury sent the following on 10/28/2009 8:46 PM:   
   > > In article ,   
   > >  Jim Gysin  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> The artist is creating a special work of art.  The artist gets to define   
   > >> the terms of access to that art.   
   > >   
   > > But if the artist copyrights the work then he is explicitly agreeing to   
   > > whatever copyright law says.  If you want total control to the access of   
   > > your work then you should not copyright it but instead make whatever   
   > > deals you want with the people that you want to deal with.   
   >   
   > I was unaware that the courts would accept or uphold agreements that   
   > violated existing Constitutional law.  For example, if I could make   
   > whatever deal I want with, say, a family selling me their house, and one   
   > of the terms of that deal was that they kill an annoying neighbor   
   > (another detour from what the Constitution allows) before moving out,   
   > wouldn't the courts have a problem with that?  Is copyright law   
   > different from laws against murder and the like?   
      
   I didn't say that the courts would accept whatever you and your client   
   agreed to.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)