Quote:
Originally Posted by rlauzon
Yes, yes, yes, I am well aware of the fantasy world in which you live. The the reality is that copyright infringement is not stealing.
|
You write this and yet you claim that your argument is based on
respect? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlauzon
I take it that the schools in the UK don't teach what Ghandi did, then.
|
Ghandi was well aware that he was breaking the law. He was willing to accept the punishment for it in order to demonstrate the law's injustice. That's the nature of civil disobedience and passive resistance. His actions stemmed from a deep and abiding respect for the concepts of civilized law. Your comparison does the man a grave disservice.
Again; I do not think
respect means what you think it means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlauzon
You need them to make laws that protect you - the author - not a faceless entity that creates nothing yet holds copyrights.
|
Oh, no you don't. The discussion was about the validity of copyright and the legality of its violation, not about whether or not the creator can transfer that right. Raising the "faceless entity" corporate straw man at this point invalidates everything you've written to this point. Copyright laws
do protect the author. The fact that said author chooses to
transfer those rights is immaterial.