|
|
Re: Can a law firm sue Google over "New Google Newsgroups"
Posted:
Jul 30, 2012 4:33 AM
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:46:37 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>In <7dj3189q89jve17qats2uobasfka9rkih8@4ax.com>, on 07/26/2012
> at 06:08 PM, K Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> 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.
--
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer.
|
|
