On 04/06/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 04/06/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 04/06/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)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.