Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rjack]

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.]"
> > > > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090321164736122
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Rjack
> > > " 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
> > > individual?
> > ...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.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)