Under the copyright laws I have a right to make a copy for my own use.
The thing I don't know is, is this Wheatfield Willy pulling our leg,
Wal-Mart Manager walking the corporate dictated line, or Bill Robb
moralizing? My response would be different to each of them.
Me? I think most people are basically honest, like me. If I saw a $100
bill on the floor in your living room, I would bring it to your
attention. If I saw one in the middle of the street, I would put it in
my pocket. Both fit my ethical standards quite well.
In my experience people who talk like you are writing would take a $100
bill out of my desk drawer and put it in their pocket. Always watch out
for the guy who claims to be absolutely honest.
IMNSHO, people who wear fake Rolex are fakes themselves, but then so are
most people who wear real ones.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
It seems to me that the only way a counterfeit Rolex could harm Rolex
is if it actually stole a sale of a legitimate Rolex, nobody in their
right mind would believe that the watch they Paid less than $100
dollars for from the street vendor in New York is a real Rolex. On
the other hand if it's sold in a legitimate jewelery store at a close
to Rolex price, and you can't tell it from a real Rolex then they
should have a cause of action, but against the store, not against the
buyer. The buyer has also been defrauded...
I think we've been down this road before. Copyright infringement isn't
decided by whether a company or person has lost money, but by whether
an infringement has taken place.
You are using the sliding scale of morality to make an arguement.
William Robb
