On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 13:52:30 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 09:38:25 -0800 (PST), Neil wrote:
>
> >Why does the constitution define copyright?
> >
> It doesn't. Automatic F. See ya!
Steve - how ironic!
You just flunked yourself...
You should have posted the context of this question, it is in response to
comments *you* yourself made, I find it extremely poignant that you didn't
include the previous dialogue which relates to this question? :-
(You actually said this bit...)
> >> Anytime copyright law is mitigated in the U.S., it is mitigated due
to
> >> a competing Constitutional value. It has to be, because copyright
> >> itself derives from the Constitution.
> >
(I said this bit...)
> >I would imagine that in reality, copyright is derived from peoples'
> >intellectual property, and the rights *they* have to protect this.
>
(You said this bit...)
> No, it derives from the Constitution.
(And finally I said this bit...)
Why does the constitution define copyright?
Now Steve, rather than just trying to snipe, and then have it back-fire, why
waste time with something like this, when you could answer the simple
question I posted, which would rather put this discussion in context.
Why are you still avoiding these questions, yet still prepared to respond
like this? You are making no sense whatsoever. You cannot claim it to be the
time or the effort if you're prepared to make a reply like this, so come on
Steve why won't you answer the three questions? What are you avoiding and
why?
Neil
_______________________________________________________
Visit Excite Shopping at http://shopping.excite.com
The fastest way to find your Holiday gift this season
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
