On 04/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
It does not. Them recieving it is not the action that causes the infringement, but rather us giving it to them that does.
Ah, but "we" don't give it to "them"; "they" take it. It's "their" action, not "ours".
Even if you successfully make the argument that the downloader is the
one
doing the infringing (an argument which I thought you said was "fucked
up"),
"Fucked up" is blaming the site for the downloader's infringement.
[...if such a thing is an infringement.]
LOL. Before you said that" if the infringement of copyright is the act of "purchase", not "sale", the US legal system is seriously fucked up." Then you said that "All of which look to me like that which is done by the infringer, not by the person who acquires the infringed material."
Now you're contradicting yourself.
Not at all, it's evidently doubly fucked up. I'm hardly surprised.