Text 1816, 102 rader
Skriven 2006-06-18 23:42:02 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av SHANNON TALLEY (1:275/311)
Ärende: CopyRight Ownership Arguement
=====================================
Hello SHANNON.

18 Jun 06 09:07, you wrote:

 >> Because you don't alienate potential paying customers by cutting
 >> their free accounts on a whim. Even when the license terms say you
 >> can. It is bad marketing strategy.

 ST> They own the business, and they were providing a "FREE" service, and
 ST> Bjorn failed to comply. They can do whatever they want, it is a "free"
 ST> country isn't it?

No argument there. They can jump off a cliff. Does not mean it is a good
marketing strategy.

 >> Providers snooping on their customers. How low must we sink to dance
 >> to the tune of the MPAA mafia?

 ST> Something you don't agree with, you admonish.  See, we live in a free
 ST> country where companies have more freedoms than what you like.

And that is a two way street. See, here young man have the freedom to write
steamy e-mails to 14 year ol girls. You don't like that, so you admonosh it,
but we live in a free country and here young men have more freedoms than what
you like.

 >> I am sure you would. I am lucky to live in a sOciety where snooping
 >> on innocent people is still considered bad manners. I am glad that
 >> in my country providers

 ST> Innocent?  Ha!

Yes, here we have that old fashioned priciple of innocent until proven guilty.

 >> respect my privacy and do not snoop on citizens unless they are
 >> forced by a court order.

 ST> Your website is NOT private, and to consider an open website private
 ST> is an idiom.

The dealer who sold me my car does not check if I do not use it to violate
speed limits. You know why? Because it is none of his bussiness even though I
drive it on a public raod. And neither should it be the bussiness of my DNS
provider what I do with my system, even though part of it is accesable to the
public.

 >> Odd. Over here a common legal opinion is that one is better
 >> protected by not snooping on the customers and leave the law to law
 >> enforcement. If you *do*

 ST> It's a matter of legality which has been explained to you repeatedly.

You explained nothing. You just *told* me. well, sorry, I do not do "being
told" anymore after I left kindergarten.

 >> Yeah, well I don't buy it.

 ST> It was a free service.

I am aware that in that case the customer does not have much of a bargaining
postion. But that is hardly the point is it?

 >> Sorry Shannon, I don't buy that. There was a human snitch and you
 >> are in the top three of my list of suspects.

 ST> That was before you contacted my ISP... Remember?

Correction: before you started *accusing* me of contacting your ISP.

 ST> You had no proof or any evidence that I had participated in any such
 ST> action,

I never claimed to have evidence. But I did have suspicions and you were and
still are in the top three on the list.

 ST> Tit - for - tat.... I really don't care.  Had I called his DYN
 ST> service, I would have let you know publicly.

Would you now? I notice you are going in hypotheical mode now. You are not
denying that you wre the one snitching on Björn. And that you now come up with
that outlandish "robocop" scenario does not make it look any bteer. Seem to me
the lady protests too much...

 ST> You contacted MY ISP and lied about it.

I denied it. A normal reaction if one is accused of something one did not do
wouldn't you say? You OTOH, have never actually denied you were the snitch who
turned Björn in...

 ST> I shared the proof with those people close to the situation, and
 ST> while considered by itself, it was not enough to 'prove' beyond a
 ST> shadow of a doubt that you did it.

IOW you have no proof.

Nuf said....


Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)