>From: Lee Daniel Crocker <email@example.com>
>In the "MP3" thread, I called Brian's multiple assertions that
>copyright violation is illegal a "dishonest" and "cowardly" form
>of argument. In retrospect, I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion
>there with insufficient evidence, and I apoligize. While I have
>seen such arguments used in that way, I have no reason to believe
>Brian's use was that, rather than merely an emotional response;
>just a bad argument, not a dishonest one.
Accepted, and I think insufficently rigorous rather than bad. ;)
>I've never been afraid to argue straightforwardly and rigorously;
>even rudeness and ridicule are useful tools in their place. But
>I should have made better use of Hanlon's razor here, and not
>assumed sinister motives to an argument that was merely lazy.
I appreciate both straightforwardness and rigorousness.
Yesterday you took me effectively to task when I said that
violation of copyright is not defined in the law as "theft" but as
"copyright infringement." You are correct.
However looking over the penalties for copyright infringement
(www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/) you might be better off being
charged with theft.
I guess if your sitting on the bench at central processing you tell
your fellow bench sitters you're in for theft, and when you get out
you tell people you were in for "copyright infringement".
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT