Quote:
You changed the subject when you went from "how many interpretations are there" to "he's a liar."
You conceeded the point because there is no way for him to be a liar unless there are two interpretations.
|
You claimed that it was possible to interpret his article as being for limited copyright, but such an interpretation is not possible, he explicitly makes the case for eternal copyright.
If he claimed in his book that he is in favor of limited times for copyright, but claims in the article that he is for eternal copyright, then one of the claims must be a lie. The question is which was the lie, the claim in the book or the claim in the article? It has nothing to do with interpretations.