On 2006-06-08, Roland Garros <linux-sux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Funny bunch of morons that they are. If they don't like the message its
> attack the messagenger. Avoid the subject at all cost.
The only subject being "avoided" is how anyone can get away with making
an allegation of _criminal_ (Erik's word) copyright infringement,
without relevant evidence to back it up.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
"For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or
distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient
to establish willful infringement."
Do you have any independent evidence that Roy's alleged infringement
was "willfull" _and_ that either Roy's alleged infringement was for
commercial advantage or private financial gain, or that the picture
in question has a retail value of more than $1000?
> Stealing is stealing.
But only _criminal_ copyright infringement is criminal copyright
infringement. If you've no evidence that the alleged infringement was
_criminal_ then you (and Erik and flatfish) are merely spouting crap.
(Possibly "criminal", i.e. libellous, crap.)
> Is there some number of things you have to steal before you become a
> theif?
I don't know. I do know that there are certain things one has to do
before one is _criminally_ infringing copyright, and that neither you
nor Erik nor flatfish have produced any evidence even _implying_ any
of those things have taken place in the case at hand.
Is there some number of fraudulent accusations you have to make before
someone gets pissed off enough to sue you for libel?
--
Darrin
\typeout{This .cls file has an "honor system" macro virus for \LaTeX.}
\typeout{Please close your eyes and overwrite bits of your .tex file.}
\typeout{Oh, and if you could delete your .bbl file that'd be great. Thx!}
|
|
