[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:37 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Thufir Hawat wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:59:03 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

[ Update: Ray Beckerman sends a correction. He says the reasoning of
the four cases and two law review articles and the brief is equally
applicable to commercial copyright infringement defendants.]"

" So it's more support for the concept of proportionality and asking
the court to consider the Constitutionality of statutory damages in
copyright cases involving noncommercial individuals."

-from the above link.

*cases involving noncommercial individuals*.  Is cisco such an
...even in Pirate culture there is a distinction made between piracy for
personal use and piracy for commercial gain. Of course this is a line
that has been blurred in recent changes to the law. It's a distinction
that used to be there and quite plain in the law. It has been eroded at
the request of media monopolists.

That the argument *can* be applied to commercial individuals is neither here nor there unless the FSF is making such an argument. Is anyone making such an argument? Oh, another strawman, you say?

The FSF doesn't go around helping Cisco pay less for copyright infringement, but they might help Grandma vs. RIAA.

Your Robin Hood analogy doesn't fly. The FSF promotes an illegal
copyright license in an attempt to steal the exclusive copyrights of programmers. Illegal is illegal. Savvy Kemo Sabe?

Why Rjack cannot distinguish between the two is a curiosity.

This should satisfy your curiosity:

Rjack doesn't accept the rationalization of piracy due the thief's state of mind or motive. The difference between commercial and non-commercial piracy is comparable to the difference between being pregnant and a "little bit" pregnant.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]