On Apr 10, 5:47 pm, delancey <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, once you declare that you don't care about the actual issues, > > That's not fair. The law says many many things that range from > dubious to ridiculous. E.g., that corporations are in some senses > people. Are you really about to say that any denial that corporations > are people is a waste of time because it doesn't recognize the actual > law, the actual composition of corporations today?
A waste of time? You bet? Who would spend a minute on this? Or that a debate > about whether some people are 3/5ths of a person was a waste of time > because it didn't recognize the actual law, the actual composition of > people at that time? A terrible example. I'll bet you can't give me the context for this argument. 99.9% of people can't. A father reading to his daughter is now an > infringement. Libraries lending is infringement. Someone lending a > book is infringement. A person reading a few pages in the bookstore > coffee shop is an infringement. Telling a story from memory is an > infringement. And ad nauseum. We know none of these things are true and that nobody is arguing them. You're simply making this up because you don't understand any of the law or the facts. That's not a proper way to enter an argument and I can't believe you'd let a student get away with this. In > other words, the burden of proof here is on you to offer a > conceptually coherent definition. Actually, no. Legally, the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to do the taking. My argument is conceptually quite coherent. I have a legally binding contract. You say that you can infringe that contract because of new technology. I say prove that in court or back down. Your countercase is to say, "parents can't read to their own children!" That giant guffaw you hear is the court system laughing hysterically. Now compare that to your spewing of strawman arguments and tell me how exactly your conceptual framework is sounder than mine. Maybe my interpretation of the law is wrong. I've been careful not to actually back the AG on the merits of the law. Charlie Petit heaps scorn on the AG for every legal move it makes and he knows more about intellectual property law than anybody. However, he makes this argument from an examination of law that is ten miles over my head, he also thinks the courts are wrong in practically everything, and he admits he is in a minority of opinion on most things. I'm trying to explain the facts of the case here. People scream copyright. Copyright is not the issue at law. Amazon didn't back down because of copyright. Amazon did not back down because they want to make it illegal for parents to read to their children either. If you want to argue that our entire system of copyright is broken, you can find many people who will agree with you, including me. If you want to argue that our entire system of contract law is wrong, however, then you need to find out what contract law is and how it works. Because that's what I'm arguing here. Even if you changed copyright tomorrow, nothing in this case would change because it's predicated entirely on what contracts say and mean. Does Analog use contracts these days? If so, you might want to find out what it is you're signing. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
