You "suppose" a lot

Post #192,309 by lincoln 1/30/05 10:07:19 PM Reply	You "suppose" a lot to word the topic in your favor. I could just as easily say "Suppose that Usenet CHARGED for their downloads, and suppose that someone introduced a way to circumvent the payment system, which I them used ocassionally" then I MIGHT be falling under the twisted analogy that you fabricate. Ben_Tilly whines: No matter whether or not you were doing it to violate copyright, you can't legitimately claim to be unaware that copyrights were going to be violated. And nowhere did I claim that I was unaware of copyrights nor unaware that my ocassional acts would violate such - the whole topic was and still is INTENT, which you're glossing over to suit your purposes. lincoln "Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #192,327 by ben_tilly 1/30/05 11:49:06 PM Reply	Silly question for you Suppose that a burglar was being tried for intentionally breaking and entering. And his defence was that he didn't intend to break and enter, that was just the result of his trying to take the jewelry. Do you think that that defence would go very far? The comparison to the current situation is straightforward. You claim to have no intent to break copyright, you just want to enjoy all of the benefits of doing so, like you have many times before. Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #192,889 by lincoln 2/3/05 2:06:06 PM Reply	Are you for fucking real??? This whole thread started because I was promised a feature before I purchased a service, which I later discovered would not be provided as promised. I was given an ORAL CONTRACT - they offered, and I accepted. Then they reneged. I now have to PAY SOMEONE ELSE to provide that which I expected from the original business transaction. They broke the contract, which now I am fighting them over by refusing to pay termination fees as stated within the contract. Hey, they broke it first; therefore, I'm not bound by it anymore. Why are you so fucking hung up on violation of copyright? I, like hundreds of others in this community, have written 1000s of software programs, whose copyright belongs to the employer at time of creation. I, like these other hundreds, have written apps later in time minorly or significantly based upon previous works; in fact, dozens if not hundreds are perfect duplicates of earlier works. They, according to your viewpoint, are violations of copyright. Are all of us going to be thrown into the slammer just to satisfy your holier-than-thou attitude? I don't intend to violate copyright; however, if I do, I don't fucking care. And before you keep being so childishly anal about it, go jump down the throats of the thousands of people who POST these files since they are violating copyright FIRST. lincoln "Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #192,943 by n3jja 2/3/05 9:54:01 PM Reply	More so than you, apparently.

Welcome to IWETHEY!