View Single Post
Old 01-23-2008, 04:52 PM   #221
rlauzon
Wizard
rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.rlauzon put the bomp in the bomp-a-bomp-a-bomp.
 
rlauzon's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,018
Karma: 67827
Join Date: Jan 2005
Device: PocketBook Era
Quote:
Originally Posted by rationalbiker View Post
Intellectual property is a valid concept.
Then you should be able to explain how it's possible to own an idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rationalbiker View Post
Yes, them too. Did it sound as though I was excluding anyone who was taking something that they had no right to take? I don't think so. Whoever does hold the copyright should seek civil redress against whoever is printing that material.
Then justify why someone who did not write the book should be able to own it long after the author is dead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rationalbiker View Post
Sounds to me like they are, or at least they are leeching off whoever does have the copyright.
There's an old saying:
It's not wrong to steal from a thief. It's certainly not wrong to take your own property from a thief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rationalbiker View Post
I'm afraid we will have to disagree.
Then you disagree with the law.
rlauzon is offline   Reply With Quote