|
|
Posted by Roy L. Fuchs on 01/03/06 16:21
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 07:21:57 -0800, "Richard C."
<post-age@spamcop.net> Gave us:
>X-No-archive: yes
>
>"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>news:43b820be.177797171@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>> On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:05:59 GMT, "Matt" <nospam@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Your argument is compelling. However, you are confusing *stealing* with
>>>> *frugality*.
>>
>>>> I would never dream of buying a $ 20 DVD to see a crummy old movie. By
>>>> copying an existing copy, I am not stealing: I am not depriving anyone
>>>> of
>>>> anything, which would be the essence of stealing. By copying a CD,
>>>> instead
>>>> of buying one which I would never do, I merely enhance my own standard
>>>> of
>>>> living without depriving any poor starving artist of anything. Just
>>>> because something is against a stupid law, it is not immoral, as
>>>> stealing
>>>> would be.
>>
>>>> No, I don't want the nice bookshelf with brand new DVDs, as suggested by
>>>> you. I just want the ethereal content of old DVDs.
>>
>>>> Ha!
>>
>>>Frugality. Another word for thief in this instance.
>>>You are stealing, pure and simple.
>>
>> Will you ninnies give it a rest.
>>
>> There are far more important things happening in the world than an
>> individual making a copy of something solely for personal use.
>>
>===============================
>Not to the creator of "intellectual property"!
>It is stealing his earnings.
Hey, he is a Texas drunk. He is not representative of the folks in
Texas that do have brains, and unscarred livers.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|