View Single Post
Old 12-07-2007, 10:07 AM   #67
wgrimm
Addict
wgrimm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wgrimm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wgrimm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wgrimm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wgrimm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wgrimm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wgrimm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wgrimm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wgrimm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wgrimm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wgrimm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 230
Karma: 334908
Join Date: Oct 2006
Device: multiple
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post

Because the version that's on the net is illegal. Creating a legal version yourself is an entirely different thing from download an illegal one.
This is where our perspectives part ways. Given 2 files that are identical, how can one be inherently legal and the other inherently illegal? Consider, if a person is taken to court, and convicted based on the prosecutions' allegations that he possessed an "illegal file,", well, what happens when the case is appealed because the prosecution had actually used a "legal" copy of the file that the defendant possessed as evidence? Silly, isn't it? A difference which makes no difference isn't much of a difference. If I have in my possession 2 identically sized .chm files that are scanned copies of a paper book, the only difference between them that 1 was downloaded from the net and one produced by me, how can one or the other be inherently legal or illegal?

Any argument denoting such is fallacious because substituting one file with the other leaves you with the same result- you possess the same file. No, what we should be looking at here is a licensing issue.
wgrimm is offline   Reply With Quote