Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
weren't we talking about people who were doing criminal litigation? wasn't I saying I get why the prosectution could have started something and then you said "some people think the law should change so he shouldn't have started something?"
whatever. Fu!
|
Let's review.
I said, among other things:
Quote:
|
Anyway, I've not followed the case that closely, and I don't intend to. A young man who seems to have been well liked and well respected has died. That's tragic. That's all I really need to know.
|
You said, among other things:
Quote:
|
And I don't see why his intention to give it away after means anything. If I steal your car to give to a poor person that makes a difference? I see nothing wrong with this being a crime. More and more value for organizations is intangible. How else do we prevent theft?
|
And
I said:
Quote:
|
There should be a very big difference between stealing your car, which prohibits your enjoyment of its possession and use, and stealing a copy of your costlessly-reproduced electronic content. The two situations really aren't at all comparable.
|
So, I responded to your simple analogy, which you used to justify your agreement with the policy in question.
Then
you said:
Quote:
|
why? I can buy a new car. the materials were licensed for a great deal of money. somewhere the copyright holders deserve payment for the copying. aren't they being denied their deserved royalties?
|
Meaning so far, you're following me outside the analysis of the facts of the case and into the policy discussion. Great.
Which I continued
here.
Which apparently prompted you the reverse field and go for your
chest-thumping act.
