[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled |
Date: |
Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:45:34 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) |
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> [...]
>> cranks who want to convince people that violation of a license
>> does not constitute copyright infringement. The only person I
>
> Generally speaking, violation of a license constitutes copyright
> infringement in pretty much the same way (zero, zilch, none) as
> violation of a renting license constitutes a trespass, you retard
> Hyman.
If there is a toll box for access, and you choose to climb in through
the backyard instead...
It depends on whether you want to claim that you wanted to pay (and it
did not register or whatever) or that you did not even think about
trying.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, (continued)
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/24
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Hyman Rosen, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alan Mackenzie, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, David Kastrup, 2010/02/23
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled,
David Kastrup <=
Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/20
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/20
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/20
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, Alexander Terekhov, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, David Kastrup, 2010/02/22
- Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled, RJack, 2010/02/22