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

Re: OMG!

Kelli Halliburton sent me the following reply to my post below.  What it
means, I have no idea.

"Fallacious reasoning. Value in this case is measured as 'value to the
copyright holder' not 'value to the public at large'."

> > > Im Artikel <RCxJ6.20265$Aj1.8134559@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net> schrieb
"Frank
> > > Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>:

> Not so fast!  Damages have nothing to do with whether or not an item is
> available through commercial channels (ie, "on the shelf").  That is one
way
> of establishing value, but there are others:  expert testimony, valuations
> of the work on the used market, etc.  Your own statements indicate that
you
> would pay $2 for a legitimately available copy, so you have already
> impeached the credibility of your new argument that the value of a piece
of
> Apple II software is $0.  Furthermore, you and others have already argued
> that the software is so valuable that it would be a travisty if it were
lost
> to posterity.  Which one of your statements is a falsehood?