gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscan


From: Snit
Subject: Re: Utterly imbecile pinky communist Ninth Circuit 'judges' (Vernorscandalous ruling)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:01:50 -0000
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.26.0.100708

Alexander Terekhov stated in post address@hidden on 9/21/10 5:33
AM:

> 
> Snit wrote:
>> 
>> JEDIDIAH stated in post address@hidden on 9/20/10 4:18
>> PM:
>> 
>> ...
>>>> Sorry, but bartering stolen or not legally usable goods is not something
>>> 
>>>     Stolen is not something that can be reasonably used interchangeably with
>>> something like "not legally usable". The only reason there is the slightest
>>> bit of problem with the transaction is that someone is trying to subvert a
>>> real right in favor of an artificial one and the courts are willing to go
>>> along.
>> 
>> What is a real right?  What is an artificial right?
>> 
>> ...
>>>     The architect's copy should not be treated any different than one
>>> sitting at Microcenter. It moves and the rights associated move along
>>> with it.
>> 
>> If you buy a ticket to an ongoing exhibit at a museum, do you think that
>> once you are done with it you should be able to pass it on to a friend... or
>> even sell it?
> 
> Of couse it is not a crime to sell used tickets.

Sure: but to try to use them again... do you think that is right?

> To wit:
> 
> http://www.goodnewsblog.com/2006/04/17/lotologist-has-amassed-250000-used-lott
> o-tickets
> 
> "Lotologist has amassed 250,000 used lotto tickets

And if someone had already cashed one in, should he be able to do so again?
 
> Published 17 Apr. 2006
> 
> You know the saying, ³one man¹s junk is another man¹s treasure.² It¹s an
> axiom that Dennis Morse and nearly 900 other people around the U.S.
> apparently take to heart.
> 
> Morse is a collector. He collects a lot of things but is most passionate
> about one thing in particular: used scratch-off lottery tickets."
> 
> Nothing prevents Autodesk from implementing the DRM based scheme that
> would make copies unfunctional after upgrade activation. It would still
> be not a crime to sell deactivated copies under first sale. A researcher
> may well be interested to buy such a copy and attempt to break the DRM
> scheme to tell Autodesk that the scheme is not reliable. And it *would*
> be a crime to break the DRM scheme (and sell copies with broken DRM)
> allowing use of deactivated software after upgrade. That is precisely
> what DMCA is about.
> 
> But instead of gently pointing out to Autodesk the right solution to
> their problem, the imbeciles in the 9th Cir. has created utterly idiotic
> anti first sale "legal test." The people of the 9th Cir. shall impeach
> sillies in robes.
> 
> regards,
> alexander.


-- 
"A non-powered hub that will only  support non-powered devices. IOW,
basically useless." -- Tim Adams



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]