Subject:
|
Re: Poor Target....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 May 2002 23:48:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
456 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> > > We could even say that, in successfully "returning" the merchandise and
> > > making the subsequent purchase, Matt committed two so-called wrongs: first,
> > > he was wrong to return it; second, he was wrong to take advantage of it.
> >
> > I'm not so sure I see the difference you're getting at between these two--
> > do you mean he was wrong to:
> > 1) conceive of the notion
> > 2) enact it?
> > (I'd disagree with that on the basis that it's not wrong to conceive of the
> > notion)
>
> I agree with you--if I'm writing a novel, I can "conceive" of any number of
> ways to commit fraud or theft or murder, but in itself that's no wrongdoing.
> Though I suppose that, if I commit any of those acts, my pre-planning might
> incriminate me. Hmm...
But it could be illegal just publishing the novel. Just look at the DVD CCA /
MPAA case against DeCSS.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Poor Target....
|
| (...) I agree with you--if I'm writing a novel, I can "conceive" of any number of ways to commit fraud or theft or murder, but in itself that's no wrongdoing. Though I suppose that, if I commit any of those acts, my pre-planning might incriminate (...) (22 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
