Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> A copy made without an intent or attempt of heeding the conditions of
>> the copying permission does not count as "legally downloaded" with
>> respect to fair use.
>
> It has nothing to do with fair use, silly dak.
>
> Not heeding your GNUtian "conditions" (illegal and hence void part of
> contractually imposed obligations aside for a moment) is a contract
> breach, not copyright infringement.

A "contract" does not come into being without a recognizable act of
entering into contractual obligations.  In this particular case, we are
not talking about a contract but rather a license bound to conditions.

The whole folderol is rather academic since so far, no defendant (let
alone any court) has been foolish enough to entertain your particular
fanciful theories.

> The idea that the "copyleft hack" of copyright act is enforceable by
> the copyright act itself is utterly moronic.

The courts so far disagree, and your dissenting opinion, however high
you happen to value it, is utterly irrelevant.  Your legal predictions
so far have had an ultimate failure rate of 100%.

There is a joke about a certain old shephard having over 60% success in
predicting the weather, to the chagrin of a really learned meteorologist
with about half the success rate.  So one day he swallows his pride and
visits the shepherd, asking him just how he does it.  "Well, I wait for
your prediction and then say the opposite."

That technique would seem to guarantee a fabulous hit rate when applied
to your legal predictions.

-- 
David Kastrup