|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled |
Date: | Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:00:16 -0500 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/23/2010 2:13 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:Hyman Rosen wrote:The use here is copying and distribution, which infringes in the absence of any license agreement at all.Providing or not providing attribution is not copying you moron, it's providing or not providing attribution. Take your meds, Hyman.The license grants permission to copy and distribute provided certain conditions are met while doing so. Copying and distributing while not meeting those conditions is copyright infringement. Those conditions can be anything - attribution, paperback format, blue covers. If the copier does not want to meet the conditions, he has no right to copy.
Give it up Alexander. It's Hyman Rosen vs. the United States Supreme Court. Hyman will just indulge in his denial ad infinitum. There is no logical way to counter a retreat into solipsistic denial. It is just as futile as attempting to prove a negative. Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding. Save your ink for conscious entities. Sincerely, RJack :) "Captain Moglen scared them out of the water!" http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |