at the temporal coordinates: 9/7/01 1:59 PM, the entity known as DON at
don_at_dcphotos.com conveyed the following:
> You have to realise the time when I respond, I may not have read
> your "recanted" statement.
That's my bad, then. While I've experienced the occasional "time warp" it's
essentially never been more than at most a few tens of minutes. Given that
some of the posts had the residual 'digest' subject lines I should've tried
to account for the fact that things get swept into the digest on a time
scale of hours.
> I believe no matter what you substitute for copyright, be it trademark,
> speeding, jaywalking, shoplifting whatever the crime occurs when you do it,
> not when you get caught. This is the point I've been trying to make. I do
> not see where you have addressed this. You made the statement (get ready,
> this will be out of context):
>> Copyright violation only exists when the
>> copyright holder takes you to court about it.
> I still disagree with that and even if you say:
> "Trademark violation only exists when the
> trademark holder takes you to court about it." And have yet to see where you
> respond to this other than to say trademark instead of copyright.
Two things. First, as amply confirmed on this list and elsewhere, for
TRADEMARKS, my statement does, indeed reflect what current law says. Note
that this ONLY applies to trademarks. If you don't defend your mark, you
lose it and if you lose it, the person that has usurped it is not in
violation of anything.
Second, the instant you speak of (and I realize this may sound like
hair-splitting) is the instant of a *possible* infraction of the law, for
which you may get caught and charged. You are only guilty of a crime (I
guess in a civil case that would be 'found liable' or something) when the
court convicts you. I've had this happen to me with a speeding ticket. The
state trooper (who had a real reputation, he even got reamed out by the
judge) *charged* me with reckless driving. And, in fact, by the radar I was
going about 22 mph over the limit. However, when I produced proof that my
speedometer is off, the State's Attorney agreed to reduce it to ordinary
speeding. By your definition, I've committed the crime of reckless driving.
Under our legal system, I'm not guilty of reckless driving. You make the
call.
>
> I want to make it clear I am not personally attacking you. I just do not
> agree with one of your statements. E-mail sometimes is a hard way to
> communicate.
Agreed. Some folks who've read other of my posts probably realize that I'm
sometimes the sort of person who will figuratively take the 2x4 and whack
the hornet's nest, just because it needs to be done occasionally so folks
will truly think about their positions. (Not to mention that one often
learns more that way.)
>
> Respectfully,
> Don
>
Have a good weekend,
- Eric.
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 12:01:34 EDT