On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:22:25 -0700
Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 05:52:44PM +0100, Ian Hastie wrote:
> > There is a difference between getting something knowing it
> > to be improperly obtained and believing it to be the property of the
> > supplier. Just to follow your example, you buy a second hand disc or
> > computer. When you hook it up you find a load of illegal MP3s. If what
> > you say is correct you'd be guilty of theft, or at the very least copyright
> >
> > infringement.
>
> You bet you would. Unless you could make a case that the seller sold you
> the system with legal rights to that data, and that case would have to
> include some plausible fee for the data, then the judge would say "there
> is no free lunch son, if the deal looked too good to be true, it was and
> you saying you didn't know isn't an excuse".
Sorry, Larry, but we live in the post-dot.com age and all have experienced
astonishing business models where virtually everything was handed to the
"customer" for free. I even know a business model where you get a free _car_,
have to pay nothing and it _works_ for the company.
So your argument is indeed one of the "unkowning" type, it would take me about
10 minutes to fundamentally prove such a judge plain silly.
Regards,
Stephan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:24 EST