Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Thufir Hawat]

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.  Why Rjack cannot 
distinguish between the two is a curiosity.


-Thufir