On Tue, July 17, 2007 9:42 pm, Larry Garfield wrote: > On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Richard Lynch wrote: > >> > Once I have written code or words, the time I have spent on that >> is >> > gone. I >> > will never get that time back, regardless of whether or not I get >> paid >> > for it >> > after the fact. >> >> Last time I checked, most day jobs have a significant lag between >> time >> spent and pay check. >> >> Perhaps your day job should stop paying you, because after you've >> spent that time, you'll never get it back? > > Is this "make up things that Larry said" day? It must be, because I > know > you're not that stupid, Richard. If my boss doesn't pay me, it's > breach of > contract. There's nothing in dispute there.
My point was only that when the book was written is irrelevant. It's just as irrelevant as the lag time between your work and your paycheck. >> I choose to spend my time developing an intellectual product because >> current laws provide me some reassurance of ROI, just as you choose >> to >> work for your employer because current laws provide you some >> assurance >> of a paycheck showing up. > > And once again that has nothing to do with the point I have been > repeating ad > nausem all day while people misquote me. I have not mis-quoted you. There can be no mis-quote if the actual text remains unaltered. I may have mis-interpreted your meaning, however. >> If you think the laws are wrong, get the laws changed. >> >> But stealling (or whatever you want to call it in semantic name >> games) > > It's not a semantic game. Copyright infringement is not theft, under > the laws > of the USA or the laws of physics. To call it such is "wrong", > inaccurate, > misleading, disingenuous, ignorant, and otherwise inappropriate. I do not believe I called it theft, personally. I said it was illegal and wrong. >> is ILLEGAL, > > If you can show where I have claimed otherwise in this thread, you get > $10 at > the ChiPHP meeting tomorrow. > >> and a violation of the author's reasonable expectations, > > Artificially created by the law, yes. And is not the ability to enforce a "contract" between two people not artificially created by the law as well? One could just as easily argue that all civil law suits, artificial creations by law and not having actual criminal behaviour, should also be thrown out. >> and, imho, that alone makes it "wrong" until you can get the law >> changed. > > If you can show where I have claimed otherwise in this thread, you get > $10 at > the ChiPHP meeting tomorrow. > > Really people. I find it hard to believe that the > otherwise-intelligent > people on this list have such a hard time with the concept that > something > should not be done for reasons that don't involve physical property, > just as > I find it hard to believe that making up things that someone > supposedly said > has suddenly become the "in" thing to do. Your post made it seem that you were in favor of those who choose to infringe on copyright. I apologize if that was our mis-interpretation. I'm certainly not a fan of the RIAA. Their attempt to "educate" the public by equating "copyright infringment" with "theft" is quite possibly the least offensive thing they've ever done, as far as I'm concerned. :-) -- Some people have a "gift" link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
