Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2006 04:57:46 -0700, Da'Punk-A wrote:
>
> > Well, I've just spent the last 45 minutes or so reading through this
> > thread, and I must say, I'm baffled by a couple of things.
>
> Why condone Roy's behavior?
I've condoned nothing. If you really want to know, I consider
copyright laws to be far too restrictive, but that's beside the point.
I was complaining about /you/ Erik.
> These things are irrefutable.
>
> 1) Without permission of the author (despite obvious postings of the
> requirement to get such) Roy copied an image from an artists website to his
> web server, created a link to that image on his blog, and has not yet
> removed said image even after being repeatedly shown how he is violating
> the law.
So what? The artist doesn't appear to be too upset. He could tell us
all here how much he hates Roy if it pissed him off that much. He
could sue Roy for whatever monetary value he feels robbed of. (LOL)
But, like I said, so what?
> 2) Linux advocates keep trying to avoid that issue and harp about "personal
> attacks" and pretend that roy is NOT violating the law, and continues to do
> so. (you're one of them).
I'm one of what? Until this very post, I haven't even commented on the
copyright issue. I was commenting on the way you can be reasonable one
day, then call someone a pirate for using a cartoon image on a
not-for-profit website without asking for permission. If you honestly
think of that as piracy, you're off your head.
> The part you don't seem to get is that the article on his blog, which hosts
> the offending image, is a vile personal attack against a respected member
> of the blogging community, yet you want to pretend that Roy is an innocent
> bystander that has been attacked for no reason.
So you're pissed off about him attacking this Scoble guy? Not the
copyright infringement? Hmm. Tab would say "flap flap" if you were a
Linux advocate.
> The very fact that Roy has not removed the image, even after being shown
> repeatedly that he's voilating copyright law says even more about him. Why
> stick up for him? Why condone his lawbreaking?
>
> Simply put, anyone that stands by and defends Roy on this forfeits all
> rights to complain about any alleged illegal behavior by anyone else,
> including Microsoft. Otherwise, you're simply a complete and utter
> hypocrite.
Yeah, the more you go on, the more I think you have a multiple
personality disorder. And today you're being Mad Erik.
>
> So which is it? Are you going to stand by Roy till the bitter end, despite
> his deliberate and continuing infringement of copyright law? Or are you
> going to do what you claim to want to do, and stand up for what's right?
Am I gonna stand up for what's right? Am I gonna take up arms on this
vital point of property law? Am I gonna diss Roy here and defend a
crooked, strong-arm outfit like Microsoft in another thread? Am I gonna
sleep with the fishes?
If you defend a crime, you have no recourse to the law yourself, is
what you seem to be saying. And that, Erik, is ridiculous and you know
it. I shoplifted when I was a kid. So if someone murders my children
and I phone the police, I'm a hypocrite. If I smoke cannabis, it is
right and proper that arsonists torch my home and the authorities stand
idly by.
Yeah, Mad Erik. Moohahaha!!
|
|
