Re: Another Modest Proposal: Pirating vs Archiving

[Michael Dobropolski <mikead@concentric.net>]

Nathan Mates wrote:
> 
> In article <31FD358F.7141@concentric.net>,
> Michael Dobropolski  <DobroDad@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>    Yo. Your Reply-To: field isn't set to go back to you, but to
> someone else. This makes your post look very suspicious in coming from
> two ISPs as above.
> 
 Nathan.
Just a courtesy. ISP's come and go with their quality and 
usefulness; but for e-mail, aol is a stable address, so that 
is the best place to reply, if you want to reply via mail. 


>    Further, it is good style to trim what you're responding to (hint:
> look up how to delete) to only the sections, as I noted in my last
> followup. Interesting how you deleted only the attempt to improve your
> netettiquette in your followup, but left everything else intact.

I really don't know about this particular interpretation of 
the deleteright law.
 
> 
> >Anyway, (not tomorrow, not years from now, no time machines)
> >the changing of law is not really temporal. Actions, that
> >are as identical as we can have as interacting social
> >beings, can get one perpetrator heavy sanctions, another
> >will never be charged, another will be charged and
> >acquitted, and so forth, all on the same day.
> 
>    [10 more lines of dense stream of consciousness prose
> deleted. Please note that James Joyce is the exception, not the rule
> in good literature.]
>
Take it up with the Jesuits. You really do deal with 
opinions after all.
 
>    So what you argument is that Asimov might pull an OJ Simpson and
> evade justice, or it might bear the full brunt of copyright law, so
> who cares? The occasional miscarriage of justice in this country is
> NOT an excuse to break the law. If and when you have a _real_
> argument, one that is based on facts, not delusions from fantasyland,
> we can talk further.
> 
> Nathan Mates

Actually, Nathan, I am hoping that personal, generalized 
attacks on the quality of argument are the exception and not 
the rule.
Sometimes acquitals are miscarrages; but that, too, truely 
is a matter of opinion. (Convictions, also.)
Law, as a tool to try to reach justice, needs to be modified 
when it is not serving that end sufficiently. Open 
discussion can be very helpful in finding out where the law 
is serving poorly - who may be benefited by the change or 
who is presently getting the short end. Expressing the 
opinion that the asimov situation is not as cut and dried as 
you make it out to be does not warrant anything but 
intelligent, honest disagreement.

Thanx for reading this,
Mike