Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
Thank you, no.
Maybe you should read my post again son. Click the link to the original piece, it clearly states "Piracy and theft are interchangeable"
|
The problem is that the original sources referenced DID NOT SAY THAT.
They only recognized pirated ( NOT THEFT)
Which means it was exactly what i said it was a misquote by wiki poster.
Quote:
Ah, your lame attempt at discrediting the source. I was expecting it a week ago, nice to see you now want to pick up the argument and rescue the thread from page,...what, 10?
Check the reference sources at the bottom of that wikipedia page the "faceless masses" are using, they look pretty solid to me.
|
^ See Berne Copyright Convention, 1886: "
Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection." (Art. 12).
^ See also Massachusetts Circuit Court Folsom v. Marsh, 1841: "If so much is taken, that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient, in point of law, to constitute a
piracy pro tanto."
neither the berne convention nor Massachusetts Circuit court Folsom V marsh, 1841 talk about theft, the addition of that word was unsourcable and simply put in by that wiki contributor
When i reference wiki it because i have read the original case law (betamax case) and want to reference a plain english explaination for the less educated.
BUT I MAKE SURE THE WIKI SUMMARY IS CONSISTANT WITH THE SOURCES REFERENCED. Which obviously you did not.