Re: vogons vs turlettes

["Quantum_Cat" <anonymous@cotse.com>]

Hiya, John

 *>QC,
 *>    I suppose I was wondering if you were a reasonable 
person who realized
 *>that intellectual property law was unfair, over-
legislated,and generally not
 *>even a true encouragement to artists and other creative 
folk. That said, I

I'd say you gave me no convincing argument to support your 
belief.  And I've seen enough contrary evidence to lead me to 
believe that you're wrong.

 *>still find it possible to believe those things and find 
fault with those who
 *>would destroy or encumber someone's ability to earn money 
from their work. I

So, you judge everything on a case by case basis?  If it 
passes some unknown "test" on your part, then it's OK, 
otherwise not?

I'm sorry, John.  In todays world, that won't cut it.  It has 
to be codified and clear.  That's what the Copyright Act is 
all about.  And they don't need your permission.

 *>have no problem with someone copying a 20 yr old rom, but 
those who try to
 *>sabotage sales of a recent/current software, for no reason 
other than to
 *>freeload are another story. You can't seem to draw that 
line. Perhaps the

John, have you noticed you were able to draw a line 
distinquishing right and wrong there, but that it's likely to 
be drawn in a totally different place by someone else?

That's why we have laws, dude.  Your solution is anarchy.  It 
MIGHT work if we had a dictator drawing the line, but that 
would be less pleasant than our current situation.

 *>blame you lay on Turley is just, I have no way of knowing, 
and never will.
 *>You have problems if you are pursuing this over a course 
of years. This
 *>isn't even about what is right and wrong anymore, if it 
ever was. I have

It isn't about right and wrong anymore?  Silly of me not to 
notice.  ;)

 *>tried, to give you the best opportunity I could to show us 
that you really
 *>had a point worth listening too, and you blew it. I wasn't 
trying to "get

Well, you seem to be closed minded about facts that prevent 
you from doing whatever you want, so I can see why you 
wouldn't be interested in further discussions.

 *>you to admit that copyright is wrong" or any such thing, 
only that it was
 *>flawed. That anything, as major as a set of federal laws 
like these, has
 *>flaws, is no suprise to anyone. Even with flaws, no one 
can argue that it
 *>invalidates copyright in total. Do you really believe that 
laws and statutes

I'll admit there may be flaws.  Laws are mutable, and I have 
faith that they gradually approach the best solution.

Dumping them entirely is certainly revolutionary, but given 
the historical failures of revolutions in general, I'd rather 
not.

 *>mirror ethics and morality, or are even similar to them? 
Even were your

Yes, that expresses my opinion rather well.  I take it you 
don't hold this same opinion?

 *>answers clear and honest, I will never know, because at 
this point I am
 *>filtering your posts.

Ah.  Well.  I guess that means I won't be seeing the evidence 
you promised.  I didn't really expect too, but I was giving 
you the benefit of a doubt.

 *>John

 *>Were there no copyright laws at all, I would still not 
destroy another man's
 *>means of living.

But you would have no method of preventing that from others, 
and the other man would have to trust your good nature.  
Unworkable in todays world.

Childish, really.  That seems to be a common thread with our 
"pirate" members of the Apple II Community.

Screaming, "I WANT, I WANT", and throwing tantrums when they 
hear "No".

Oh well.

Hey, I might get used to this civil business.  ;)

Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat