>In <email@example.com>, on 07/26/2012 > at 06:08 PM, K Wills <firstname.lastname@example.org> said: > >> That you don't like what I gave doesn't mean I didn't give it. > >The Devil is in the details. The US constitution explicitly provides >for copyrights, although the duration in current law makes am mockery >of the term "limited".
Destroying something I own isn't a violation of copyright.
> >>How? It's not like I'm claiming Van Gogh ruined his painting. > >No, you're implying that a dead artist is the same as a living one. >
Lying isn't going to help you.
>>If it's a contemporary artist, I'm not claiming s/he did it. I >>would be openly admitting that I ruined the painting. > >If you display it as the work of the artist, then you are affecting >his reputation. That's harm. >
Who said I was displaying it? I did mention that others might be able to see it, but that's not the same as displaying it. You're trying, and failing, to argue points I've never presented.
>>Such an action may earn me some rest at a local mental health >>care facility, > >The current law on intellectual property is fascistic enough without >allowing the government to impose Soviet-style repression. > >>but it shouldn't violate any law. > >Your claim wasn't simply that it should be legal, but that it didn't >harm anyone else.
Try to pay attention. It should not be illegal because it doesn't harm anyone.