In a message dated 2/21/2000 3:59:33 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << In essence, what you (Russ) are doing is assuming a position of intellectual property owenership over something which you are freely distributing, and which you are freely distributing in a way that breaks the current intellectual property laws. >> Difference: If you distribute material for free, you can make an argument (often not accepted by the courts) for "fair use." Once someone, like eBay auctioneers, make a personal profit off it (ooh, that rhymes), fair-use arguments go out the window. Now, if someone was making offers to redistribute Russ's files for free to someone who wouldn't ordinarily get it, or offer to burn for cost of CD plus postage, that once again could fall under fair use. But you can't just use the libertarian argument that "whatever some idiot will pay for is OK to sell." So Russ's gripe does indeed hold water. Loring Wirbel Monument, Colo. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
