[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:00:16 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

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.

RJack :)

"Captain Moglen scared them out of the water!"

reply via email to

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