Re: [SLUG] Revolution OS

From: Smitty (a.smitty@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Jul 09 2002 - 21:45:00 EDT


Sorry for the misunderstanding, Russ. I thought it was understood that an
individual would first purchase the work, then make a copy for their own use.
I will need to be more explicit with you the next time. In any case, I have
expressed my view, and you have expressed yours. I am a copyright, patent
and trademark holder. I have studied the law and come to my own conclusions.
It is good that you have also come to yours. I think any debate on this
issue would be a waste of bandwidth and get us nowhere. Of course, you may
continue the thread on the politics list, to which I have no interest.
Smitty

On Tuesday 09 July 2002 17:27, you wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Smitty wrote:
> > No ethical copyright owner should have a problem with someone making a
> > copy of such a work for their personal use. After all, the Fair Use
> > doctrine is
>
> Ethical? This may need to move to -politics ; any future
> posting be me on this thread will. Smitty: I am shocked to
> see a 'parlour pink; Libertarian, to mix metaphors.
>
>
> If a person as an individual takes to using my copyrighted
> content, commercially or individually, beyond the scope of my
> permission and license on such use, and not within a limited
> scope of statutorily imposed 'Fair Use' or archival backup
> right, I'll part their hair with an axe, or issue a demand
> letter, depending on whether they are within my reach.
>
> (Copyright in the US is now a wholly statutory matter, without
> material remaining pre-1787 common law antecedent, but encased
> with judicial petty-fogging and construction)
>
> The owner of a piece of property, real or personal, tangible
> or intangible, has an absolute right to do with it as he will
> -- even to waste it, to lock it away, or destroy the same --
> within the scope of not violating governmentally imposed
> strictures on its use.
>
> If not, Freedom is over, and the Collectivists have won.
>
> If you take a person's property without their consent, it is
> theft. It is just as wrong when a business owner copies a
> bootleg copy of a Microsoft product, as it would be when a
> child burns a CD with downloaded copyrighted rap music.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 13:37:51 EDT