Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
He seems to make a pretty good case that what you did in that case is exactly what you are saying others are doing now, semantical nitpicking.
"Media shift and archival is permitted in other intellectual work and is not specifically prohibited in books. In fact, libraries are specifially permitted to have up to one paper copy of a book or three digital copies for archival purposes as long as only one is in use at any time. Since library isn't defined, who's to say that my large collection isn't a library. I have always referred to it as one.
[...]
Unless, you're a lawyer (and, considering comments we've seen from an individual claiming to be one, that wouldn't hold much water with me), tread carefully. Show me one case where someone has been prosecuted, let alone convicted, for media shifting books without distribution."
Really? That doesn't sit too well with:
"We weren't discussing penalties here, just whether something was illegal or not. In this instance, Grimm, your bringing the difference was semantical nitpicking. Too often here, I've seen legal semantics used as an argument to condone doing something illegal just because the penalties or the method of prosecution was different. However, it doesn't matter if one carries a lighter penalty (even to the point of being virtually nonexistant), if it's illegal, it's illegal."
|
You're comparing apples and oranges.