Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 2/23/2010 2:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > > The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the
> > > absence of any license agreement at all.
> >
> > Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron,
> > it's providing or not providing attribution. Take your meds, Hyman.
>
> The license grants permission to copy and distribute provided certain
> conditions are met while doing so. Copying and distributing while not
> meeting those conditions is copyright infringement. Those conditions
> can be anything - attribution, paperback format, blue covers. If the
> copier does not want to meet the conditions, he has no right to copy.
Give it up Alexander. It's Hyman Rosen vs. the United States Supreme
Court. Hyman will just indulge in his denial ad infinitum. There is no
logical way to counter a retreat into solipsistic denial. It is just as
futile as attempting to prove a negative. Hyman will just ignore the
Supreme Court decision as if it didn't exist and continue to quote the
Federal Circuit's erroneous finding.

Save your ink for conscious entities.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

"Captain Moglen scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php
ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.