GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

Amputate Your Head · 09-18-2001, 11:38 AM

Unseen wrote:

"I notice that while that was Napster's argument, the courts weren't buying. I think most people laugh up their sleeve at that argument."

I'm not laughing. Just because the people in those courts were ignorant to the inner workings of today's technology does not make them right. Whether they banged a gavel or not. Facts still prevail.

"When you use quotes that imply I used a term, you might want to cite the whole passage. I never used any expression indicating or stating you needed to be 'authorized' to express ignorant views."

I wasn't quoting you. I used an apostrophe to express emphasis. Had I intended to quote you, I would have used a quotation symbol: "

"Yes, it's a regular fuckin' witch hunt, isn't it? People with the purest of motives, like the guy who runs http://www.astroxxx.com being sullied by the likes of me and Gem. At least now you can say you have seen The True Face of Evil!"

This ridiculous statement is of your own making. I never said nor implied anything remotely close to a witch hunt in that post.

"I hereby condemn them all!!! (write that down: I condemn ALL copyright violation)."

I'm writing.

"Pictures her son took of his kid or a picture some poor shmoe is trying to make a buck off of? Fair use may or may not apply."

What difference is there? If her son took the pics, he then is the copyright holder, is he not? If she's sending them through email without a license to do so, she is in violation. In your own words, "Would you feel free to borrow your neighbor's lawn mower (without his knowledge) simply because you weren't going to use it for making money mowing lawns?" And this time I AM quoting you.

"Now it is really YOU who have ignored my central point from the beginning, which was not to dwell on whether or not it was legal, but whether it was ethical or good manners to use someone else's PROPERTY without their authorization. It's your turn to comment on that now."

I have not ignored your point. I've acknowledged it at least twice already in this thread. However, it is somewhat difficult to maintain a conversation about the topic at hand without the two areas of focus overlapping. Ethics and legalities often collide in numerous discussions.

I feel it is you who has missed my point.

I did not say the atroxxx moron was right or justified. I did not say you and Gem were riding black horses carrying torches to hunt down the witch. I DID say that intent makes no difference. And so did you.

Mom is just as guilty as atroxxx. Are we going to bring the copyright hammer down on her too? This does not imply "gray area"...

it implies hypocrisy.

[This message has been edited by Amputate Your Head (edited 09-18-2001).]

09-18-2001, 11:38 AM
Amputate Your Head There can be only one Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Somewhere else Posts: 39,075	Unseen wrote: "I notice that while that was Napster's argument, the courts weren't buying. I think most people laugh up their sleeve at that argument." I'm not laughing. Just because the people in those courts were ignorant to the inner workings of today's technology does not make them right. Whether they banged a gavel or not. Facts still prevail. "When you use quotes that imply I used a term, you might want to cite the whole passage. I never used any expression indicating or stating you needed to be 'authorized' to express ignorant views." I wasn't quoting you. I used an apostrophe to express emphasis. Had I intended to quote you, I would have used a quotation symbol: " "Yes, it's a regular fuckin' witch hunt, isn't it? People with the purest of motives, like the guy who runs http://www.astroxxx.com being sullied by the likes of me and Gem. At least now you can say you have seen The True Face of Evil!" This ridiculous statement is of your own making. I never said nor implied anything remotely close to a witch hunt in that post. "I hereby condemn them all!!! (write that down: I condemn ALL copyright violation)." I'm writing. "Pictures her son took of his kid or a picture some poor shmoe is trying to make a buck off of? Fair use may or may not apply." What difference is there? If her son took the pics, he then is the copyright holder, is he not? If she's sending them through email without a license to do so, she is in violation. In your own words, "Would you feel free to borrow your neighbor's lawn mower (without his knowledge) simply because you weren't going to use it for making money mowing lawns?" And this time I AM quoting you. "Now it is really YOU who have ignored my central point from the beginning, which was not to dwell on whether or not it was legal, but whether it was ethical or good manners to use someone else's PROPERTY without their authorization. It's your turn to comment on that now." I have not ignored your point. I've acknowledged it at least twice already in this thread. However, it is somewhat difficult to maintain a conversation about the topic at hand without the two areas of focus overlapping. Ethics and legalities often collide in numerous discussions. I feel it is you who has missed my point. I did not say the atroxxx moron was right or justified. I did not say you and Gem were riding black horses carrying torches to hunt down the witch. I DID say that intent makes no difference. And so did you. Mom is just as guilty as atroxxx. Are we going to bring the copyright hammer down on her too? This does not imply "gray area"... it implies hypocrisy. [This message has been edited by Amputate Your Head (edited 09-18-2001).]