| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Using an unjust law to have something legal removed from a website (something
> > that had been up for months) is immoral. It may be legal but there are very few
> > people outside the legal departments of multinational entertainment companies or
> > the ruling parties in dictatorships that consider a law that holds someone
> > guilty until proven innocent to be moral.
> >
> > So my moral ground is that you have recently, and maliciously, used immoral
> > means to attack me freedom of speech.
> >
> > Tim
>
> I couldn't give a rats ass about DMCA, 'fair usage', 'freedom of speech' or '1st
> ammendment rights' or whatever people are going on about now--it's all
> obfuscating the actual issue.
--snip--
>
> Someone changed and 'mislinked' Erics creations in the sidebar of Technic to a
> different pic that wasn't Erics.
>
> It wasn't suitable behaviour, as DaveE stated. This has nothing to do with
> copyrights or 'free use' or Eric's response--the links in the sidebar that were
> linking to Eric's creations--and only Eric's creations--were tampered with and
> FOR THIS ALONE Eric deserves an apology (if it is shown that it was done
> intentionally and maliciously, and right now, just by understanding 'the usual
> suspects' and the history of some LUGNETters regarding Eric, I really can't
> believe that it wasn't malicious in intent and execution).
>
> All other yippage by all parties (including me, so it seems) is specifically
> irrelevant to this point.
>
> Dave K
If you think that Eric deserves an apology then perhaps you should apologise to
him. Since you had as much to do with the original issue as I did then you owe
him an apology as much as I do. Furthermore I've never argued that the original
issue was right, you've never argued that the original issue is right.
As for the post you quote: Eric asked me a question. I answered it. That's what
I do when I'm asked questions. That is part of discussion. Even more to the
point it's in .off-topic.debate which means it can be a debate style discussion.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: malicious behavior
|
| (...) Once again obfuscation--my replies to your comments-- 'I’ve stayed out of this thread until this comment. There is no evidence that Eric is in anyway better than this. There is plenty of evidence that he is not. Just because people get a rise (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: malicious behavior
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote: <snip> (...) I couldn't give a rats ass about DMCA, 'fair usage', 'freedom of speech' or '1st ammendment rights' or whatever people are going on about now--it's all obfuscating the actual issue. (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
183 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
