OMG! 30 more seconds of research turned up this silly statute:
§ 1001.60. Resolution for and adoption of program; writing bad check defined
Upon the adoption of a resolution by the board of supervisors declaring that there are sufficient funds available to fund the program, the district attorney may create within his or her office a diversion program pursuant to this chapter for persons who write bad checks. For purposes of this chapter, “writing a bad check” means making, drawing, uttering, or delivering any check or draft upon any bank or depository for the payment of money where there is probable cause to believe there has been a violation of Section 476a. The program may be conducted by the district attorney or by a private entity under contract with the district attorney.
Crazy. The California legislature gives district attorneys the authority to enter into contracts with private companies to form bad check diversion programs. Wow. Who would have thunk that maybe the district attorneys are acting under some weird direct authority when contracting with collectors for debt collection?
Not Mike. He just assumes the DAs are all lawbreaking idiots.
Can you not even admit that maybe, just maybe, you jumped to a conclusion prematurely, Mike? You might be surprised how an inch of honesty can lead to a mile of respect. You don't have to be an extremist to get your point across. In fact, I bet you'd be a much more effective advocate if you weren't so extreme. Too scared to try? Or is just a fundamental aversion to telling the truth?
I think it's obvious that I'm only asking about the situation where the downloading is in fact infringement. Give me a break. Funny how Mike still won't answer the question. Nor will he ever. The last thing he ever wants is to be pinned down on his own beliefs. Nothing fundamentally dishonest about that.
Seriously? All you've got to say is 'If it was illegal they wouldn't do it'? And how many times have you posted on this thread?
Huh? I said more than that. I quoted "§ 1692p. Exception for certain bad check enforcement programs operated by private entities." The point being that there is a perfectly good explanation for this that doesn't involve hundreds of district attorneys being so dumb that they're illegal selling their letterhead to debt collectors in violation of federal law. Give me a break. It's much more likely that the DAs are operating within this § 1692p exception, and that, given the fact that their job in life is (literally) to understand the law and to prosecute those who violate it, they were more careful in researching the law on point than Mike was (which means greater than zero, 'cause Mike didn't research it). Debt collection of a sum certain is pretty basic stuff. To think that all these DAs don't understand the rules on such a simple legal issue is ridiculous. Impugning these DAs based on a flimsy assertion from an admitted non-expert, as Mike has done here, is reckless and stupid. This post represents all that is wrong with Techdirt.
Why do you assume that there was fraud? Bouncing a check is not necessarily fraud. It could have been a mistake.
I don't know the facts of her case. Maybe there was an intent to defraud, and maybe there wasn't. I'm trying to understand the "due process" that this system is so evilly set up to "avoid."
Now, why aren't you asking Mike why he assumes that hundreds of district attorneys are so stupid that they're violating federal debt collection law? Isn't it more likely that the DAs know the law and are working within it?
Honestly, I think Masnick is one of the most knowledgable and articulate people on the other side of the debate. That's why I like engaging him. To use an analogy, he's the copyright equivilant of a Teabagger or Glenn Beck. But it's useful to engage with him because it helps understand the other side. That has value because ultimately these issues have to be reconciled. Endless war serves no one's interests. For instance, he convinced me that the tool to combat was a robust expansion of online content choices by the providers who shit is being looted. My major criticism of him is that he never gives an inch and seldom acknowledges the virtue of a position on the other side. That's unfortunate as he will continue to be regarded as a anti-copyright jihadist and his input will be discounted accordingly.
He has some good ideas from time to time, but at bottom he's a biased, zealous, and arrogant demagogue who jumps to conclusions and works backwards while tearing down everyone and everything that dares challenge his views.
He claims that over 300 district attorneys "likely are violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in a very, very big way..." Mike based that claim on a post from a guy who admits that he only did 10 minutes of research on Google before coming to that conclusion.
That was good enough for Mike.
In Mike's zealous world, hundreds of DAs are violating federal debt collection law by "selling their letterhead" in some crazy, illegal kickback scheme. It apparently never occurred to Mike that maybe these DAs, whose job in life is to know the law and to hold others responsible for it, might know what they're doing.
Why bring silly logic into it when you can impugn the reputation of hundreds of DAs based on someone else's 10 minutes of research on Google?
It took me 30 seconds of research to discover that there is an exception in the FDCPA for "bad check enforcement programs. 15 U.S.C. § 1692p. Crazily enough, maybe these DAs actually spent a few seconds researching the law before allowing collection agencies to use their letterhead. Maybe, just maybe, they're on the up-and-up.
It's stupid stuff like that makes me lose practically all respect for him. He really is a smart guy. It's a shame his zeal and bias get the best of him.
I don't know how he thinks anyone will take him seriously when he's claiming that hundreds of DAs are violating federal law with practically nothing to back it up. He doesn't appear to care about getting things right. He's just mindlessly lashing out 24/7.
And just to show you how incredibly prone you are to jump to conclusions, it took me 30 seconds to find this on Westlaw:
1. Exceptions to FDCPA Coverage
Effective October 13, 2006, Congress exempted qualifying private entities that contract with district attorneys to operate “bad check enforcement programs” from FDCPA liability. Id. § 1692p.
Schwarm v. Craighead, 552 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
You might want to read 15 U.S.C. 1692p:
§ 1692p. Exception for certain bad check enforcement programs operated by private entities
(a) In general
(1) Treatment of certain private entitiesSubject to paragraph
(2), a private entity shall be excluded from the definition of a debt collector, pursuant to the exception provided in section 1692a(6) of this title, with respect to the operation by the entity of a program described in paragraph (2)(A) under a contract described in paragraph (2)(B).
(2) Conditions of applicability
Paragraph (1) shall apply if--
(A) a State or district attorney establishes, within the jurisdiction of such State or district attorney and with respect to alleged bad check violations that do not involve a check described in subsection (b) of this section, a pretrial diversion program for alleged bad check offenders who agree to participate voluntarily in such program to avoid criminal prosecution;
(B) a private entity, that is subject to an administrative support services contract with a State or district attorney and operates under the direction, supervision, and control of such State or district attorney, operates the pretrial diversion program described in subparagraph (A); and
(C) in the course of performing duties delegated to it by a State or district attorney under the contract, the private entity referred to in subparagraph (B)--
(i) complies with the penal laws of the State;
(ii) conforms with the terms of the contract and directives of the State or district attorney;
(iii) does not exercise independent prosecutorial discretion;
(iv) contacts any alleged offender referred to in subparagraph (A) for purposes of participating in a program referred to in such paragraph--
(I) only as a result of any determination by the State or district attorney that probable cause of a bad check violation under State penal law exists, and that contact with the alleged offender for purposes of participation in the program is appropriate; and
(II) the alleged offender has failed to pay the bad check after demand for payment, pursuant to State law, is made for payment of the check amount;
(v) includes as part of an initial written communication with an alleged offender a clear and conspicuous statement that--
(I) the alleged offender may dispute the validity of any alleged bad check violation;
(II) where the alleged offender knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that the alleged bad check violation is the result of theft or forgery of the check, identity theft, or other fraud that is not the result of the conduct of the alleged offender, the alleged offender may file a crime report with the appropriate law enforcement agency; and
(III) if the alleged offender notifies the private entity or the district attorney in writing, not later than 30 days after being contacted for the first time pursuant to clause (iv), that there is a dispute pursuant to this subsection, before further restitution efforts are pursued, the district attorney or an employee of the district attorney authorized to make such a determination makes a determination that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed; and
(vi) charges only fees in connection with services under the contract that have been authorized by the contract with the State or district attorney.
15 U.S.C.A. § 1692p (West).
Are you this rushed to jump to conclusions with everything? I don't get it. Slow down.
Updated added about the possibility of these actions violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Translation: Someone, who admits to not being an expert on this area of law and to having only spent 10 minutes on Google researching the point, thought of some other law this might violate. Since I don't actually understand the law and since I like his conclusion (I do work backwards, after all), I'll just link to it with the ultra-FUDy claim that "the offices doing this likely are violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in a very, very big way..."
Sigh.
Sorry, Mike, but the way you rely on half-baked theories from people who admit to having only 10 minutes of research on a point kind of says it all about your methods and your bias. Considering we're talking about DA offices taking part in this, maybe, just maybe, there's a counterargument that you aren't aware of. I know, I know. Why go there, right? Attack!
Again, Greenfield points out that you don't get to avoid due process just because it's a hassle:
After all, who would want to "overburden the court system or the resources of district attorneys" by expecting them to do their jobs? Who would want courts and prosecutors to afford citizens due process? Instead, let's defer to the excellent judgment and trustworthiness of businesses and debt collectors. They would never lie. They would never get it wrong.
Mike,
Since you clearly are indicating your concurrence with Greenfield's claim that this situation violates due process, can you please explain why you think so?
This appears to me to be ANOTHER situation where you cite that faithful touchstone, but you don't actually have a real legal argument to back it up.
Looks like you, me and Bob against the entire lunatic asylum. Most of them are kneejerk idiots who don't know anything past what they read here. Some are pretty smart and make good points. I've learned a ton of useful stuff and have actually changed my opinion on a couple of things.
Indeed. Many here just follow the leader, but sometimes someone makes a good point. I only wish Mike were more engaging and forthright with dissenters. The supercilious sloganism gets old.
There are a shitload of advisors from a variety of industries, many of whom could care less about copyright relative to their own industry concerns. And even the movie/music/software guys have concerns beyond copyright. Only your side is 100% absorbed on the copyright issue.
Been enjoying all of your posts. Thanks for keeping it real. Clearly Mike won't be happy with anything copyright-related unless it involves abolition thereof.
Ask him any simple, direct question such as: "Mike, do you think any parts of copyright law are 'good'? If so, which parts?" You will not get an answer.
He'll write incessantly about copyright law, but if you ask him a simple, direct question about his beliefs he'll have a million excuses but no answers. It's quite remarkable.
Several people challenged me on a bunch of different stuff, and I was glad to explain myself as best I could. I'd love to have a similarly productive conversation with Mike, but all he has are excuses...
The question is: Do you think that when someone downloads a movie because they simply want to watch it for free without paying for it, that person has acted immorally?
Instead of linking to a post that doesn't actually answer the question, just man up and give me a direct answer.
What is your answer?
All I did was repeated back to you your own ridiculous logic
You are lying. I never said wishes = rights. I would never say that because I don't believe it to be true. Please cite the exact source of your claim that I said it, or just admit that you are lying.
I was just demonstrating the logical fallacies of your own argument.
Please show me the exact text that I posted that says wishes = rights. I never said that. You are lying. Please show me the text, or admit that you are lying.
Actually, you did. We had a discussion about copyright violating people's rights, and I asked how if you believed it was a violation even if they were better off, and you said yes, because it went against their wishes. Thus, the only reason it was wrong was because it went against their wishes.
Please provide a link so I can see precisely the words said. Otherwise, I don't believe you.
Yes, you are violating their rights even if you are making them better off (in your opinion). That is not the same thing as saying their wishes = their rights. Whether it goes against their wishes and whether you think it makes them better off is irrelevant to the issue of whether it violates their rights.
I'm proving that you don't really believe that because you consistently go against my wishes by still posting on this site, despite my desire that you either start acting like an adult or go away.
Whether you wish me to post or not is irrelevant to whether or not I have violated your rights.
I'll remember that the next time you say the opposite.
I have never said wishes = rights. Remember that next time you pretend I did.
Now please answer the simple question above. Do you think it's immoral when someone downloads a movie rather than just pay for it.
No squirming. No bullshit. Just answer the question.
Are you really so scared to just say what you think?
Seriously, Mike. Stop being so evasive and so ridiculous. Just man up and have a straightforward and honest discussion for a change. I am an open book. I will answer any question you have (within reason). Are you not capable of the same? I really don't get it.
This could be solved pretty easily: make the US positions and negotiating documents public and allow public comment on them. The USTR still hasn't given a reason why this can't be done. Though, the answer seems kind of obvious: actually being transparent would mean having to listen to the public and various experts point out where they're completely clueless. If USTR negotiators are so insecure in their positions, they shouldn't be in that job.
That's pretty much my frustration with you. You refuse to discuss publicly and openly your personal beliefs about copyright and piracy. Being transparent about your beliefs would mean opening them up to scrutiny. It would mean pinning you down on specifics. If you're so insecure about your beliefs about copyright and piracy, maybe your job shouldn't be running a blog where the topic of discussion is frequently copyright and piracy. Funny that.
Why'd you run away again, Mike? Why won't you point out how I'm violating your rights? Where did I say that wishes = rights? Why all the excuses instead of just a simple answer to a direct question?
There really isn't even one honest cell in your entire body, is there? Nothing makes you freak out faster than a simple question about your beliefs. Instead of lies and excuses, prove me wrong by engaging me.
Stop with all the nonsense, Mike. Grow up, relax, and have a straight conversation me just once. I dare you. I know you won't.
What makes me laugh is that you've changed your avatar after someone called you out on using a copyrighted image even though you claimed "fair use" at the time.
People have been questioning me about it for years. I haven't changed my opinion about whether it's infringing. I changed my avatar so people would stop derailing conversations by changing the subject to my avatar. I want to focus on the issues. It's really that simple. People here are so desperate to take me down a notch. That's understandable since I obviously don't drink the same Kool-Aid. So now I've taken away one common thing people pull out to distract attention away from my points. Simple as that. I've explained why I don't think it was infringing several times at length. It still cracks me up that the same people who see noninfringement everywhere they look suddenly have a different point of view. But I digress...
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Crazy. The California legislature gives district attorneys the authority to enter into contracts with private companies to form bad check diversion programs. Wow. Who would have thunk that maybe the district attorneys are acting under some weird direct authority when contracting with collectors for debt collection?
Not Mike. He just assumes the DAs are all lawbreaking idiots.
Can you not even admit that maybe, just maybe, you jumped to a conclusion prematurely, Mike? You might be surprised how an inch of honesty can lead to a mile of respect. You don't have to be an extremist to get your point across. In fact, I bet you'd be a much more effective advocate if you weren't so extreme. Too scared to try? Or is just a fundamental aversion to telling the truth?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh? I said more than that. I quoted "§ 1692p. Exception for certain bad check enforcement programs operated by private entities." The point being that there is a perfectly good explanation for this that doesn't involve hundreds of district attorneys being so dumb that they're illegal selling their letterhead to debt collectors in violation of federal law. Give me a break. It's much more likely that the DAs are operating within this § 1692p exception, and that, given the fact that their job in life is (literally) to understand the law and to prosecute those who violate it, they were more careful in researching the law on point than Mike was (which means greater than zero, 'cause Mike didn't research it). Debt collection of a sum certain is pretty basic stuff. To think that all these DAs don't understand the rules on such a simple legal issue is ridiculous. Impugning these DAs based on a flimsy assertion from an admitted non-expert, as Mike has done here, is reckless and stupid. This post represents all that is wrong with Techdirt.
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know the facts of her case. Maybe there was an intent to defraud, and maybe there wasn't. I'm trying to understand the "due process" that this system is so evilly set up to "avoid."
Now, why aren't you asking Mike why he assumes that hundreds of district attorneys are so stupid that they're violating federal debt collection law? Isn't it more likely that the DAs know the law and are working within it?
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He has some good ideas from time to time, but at bottom he's a biased, zealous, and arrogant demagogue who jumps to conclusions and works backwards while tearing down everyone and everything that dares challenge his views.
Case in point. Check out his article from later today: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/12441420408/local-district-attorneys-sell-their-letterhead -threats-jailtime-to-debt-collectors.shtml
He claims that over 300 district attorneys "likely are violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in a very, very big way..." Mike based that claim on a post from a guy who admits that he only did 10 minutes of research on Google before coming to that conclusion.
That was good enough for Mike.
In Mike's zealous world, hundreds of DAs are violating federal debt collection law by "selling their letterhead" in some crazy, illegal kickback scheme. It apparently never occurred to Mike that maybe these DAs, whose job in life is to know the law and to hold others responsible for it, might know what they're doing.
Why bring silly logic into it when you can impugn the reputation of hundreds of DAs based on someone else's 10 minutes of research on Google?
It took me 30 seconds of research to discover that there is an exception in the FDCPA for "bad check enforcement programs. 15 U.S.C. § 1692p. Crazily enough, maybe these DAs actually spent a few seconds researching the law before allowing collection agencies to use their letterhead. Maybe, just maybe, they're on the up-and-up.
It's stupid stuff like that makes me lose practically all respect for him. He really is a smart guy. It's a shame his zeal and bias get the best of him.
I don't know how he thinks anyone will take him seriously when he's claiming that hundreds of DAs are violating federal law with practically nothing to back it up. He doesn't appear to care about getting things right. He's just mindlessly lashing out 24/7.
It's sad, really.
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re: Updated
You might want to read 15 U.S.C. 1692p:15 U.S.C.A. § 1692p (West).
Are you this rushed to jump to conclusions with everything? I don't get it. Slow down.
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re: Updated
Translation: Someone, who admits to not being an expert on this area of law and to having only spent 10 minutes on Google researching the point, thought of some other law this might violate. Since I don't actually understand the law and since I like his conclusion (I do work backwards, after all), I'll just link to it with the ultra-FUDy claim that "the offices doing this likely are violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in a very, very big way..."
Sigh.
Sorry, Mike, but the way you rely on half-baked theories from people who admit to having only 10 minutes of research on a point kind of says it all about your methods and your bias. Considering we're talking about DA offices taking part in this, maybe, just maybe, there's a counterargument that you aren't aware of. I know, I know. Why go there, right? Attack!
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re: Re:
I honestly don't understand the "due process" argument here. If anything, it seems like she'd rather "avoid" the due process of a fraud conviction.
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
After all, who would want to "overburden the court system or the resources of district attorneys" by expecting them to do their jobs? Who would want courts and prosecutors to afford citizens due process? Instead, let's defer to the excellent judgment and trustworthiness of businesses and debt collectors. They would never lie. They would never get it wrong.
Mike,
Since you clearly are indicating your concurrence with Greenfield's claim that this situation violates due process, can you please explain why you think so?
This appears to me to be ANOTHER situation where you cite that faithful touchstone, but you don't actually have a real legal argument to back it up.
Prove me wrong?
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. Many here just follow the leader, but sometimes someone makes a good point. I only wish Mike were more engaging and forthright with dissenters. The supercilious sloganism gets old.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Been enjoying all of your posts. Thanks for keeping it real. Clearly Mike won't be happy with anything copyright-related unless it involves abolition thereof.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re:
He'll write incessantly about copyright law, but if you ask him a simple, direct question about his beliefs he'll have a million excuses but no answers. It's quite remarkable.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re:
I'm here to have meaningful discussions about issues, and I back up what I say. Here's a recent post where I think the comments were quite productive: www.techdirt.com/articles/20120914/05442020382/dutch-court-says-linking-can-be-form-copyright-infrin gement.shtml
Several people challenged me on a bunch of different stuff, and I was glad to explain myself as best I could. I'd love to have a similarly productive conversation with Mike, but all he has are excuses...
Oh well, I'm signing off for the night.
On the post: The Copyright Act Explicitly Says Disruptive Innovation Should Be Blocked
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I answered you.
No, you have not.
The question is: Do you think that when someone downloads a movie because they simply want to watch it for free without paying for it, that person has acted immorally?
Instead of linking to a post that doesn't actually answer the question, just man up and give me a direct answer.
What is your answer?
All I did was repeated back to you your own ridiculous logic
You are lying. I never said wishes = rights. I would never say that because I don't believe it to be true. Please cite the exact source of your claim that I said it, or just admit that you are lying.
I was just demonstrating the logical fallacies of your own argument.
Please show me the exact text that I posted that says wishes = rights. I never said that. You are lying. Please show me the text, or admit that you are lying.
Actually, you did. We had a discussion about copyright violating people's rights, and I asked how if you believed it was a violation even if they were better off, and you said yes, because it went against their wishes. Thus, the only reason it was wrong was because it went against their wishes.
Please provide a link so I can see precisely the words said. Otherwise, I don't believe you.
Yes, you are violating their rights even if you are making them better off (in your opinion). That is not the same thing as saying their wishes = their rights. Whether it goes against their wishes and whether you think it makes them better off is irrelevant to the issue of whether it violates their rights.
I'm proving that you don't really believe that because you consistently go against my wishes by still posting on this site, despite my desire that you either start acting like an adult or go away.
Whether you wish me to post or not is irrelevant to whether or not I have violated your rights.
I'll remember that the next time you say the opposite.
I have never said wishes = rights. Remember that next time you pretend I did.
Now please answer the simple question above. Do you think it's immoral when someone downloads a movie rather than just pay for it.
No squirming. No bullshit. Just answer the question.
Are you really so scared to just say what you think?
Seriously, Mike. Stop being so evasive and so ridiculous. Just man up and have a straightforward and honest discussion for a change. I am an open book. I will answer any question you have (within reason). Are you not capable of the same? I really don't get it.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
That's pretty much my frustration with you. You refuse to discuss publicly and openly your personal beliefs about copyright and piracy. Being transparent about your beliefs would mean opening them up to scrutiny. It would mean pinning you down on specifics. If you're so insecure about your beliefs about copyright and piracy, maybe your job shouldn't be running a blog where the topic of discussion is frequently copyright and piracy. Funny that.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why'd you run away again, Mike? Why won't you point out how I'm violating your rights? Where did I say that wishes = rights? Why all the excuses instead of just a simple answer to a direct question?
There really isn't even one honest cell in your entire body, is there? Nothing makes you freak out faster than a simple question about your beliefs. Instead of lies and excuses, prove me wrong by engaging me.
Stop with all the nonsense, Mike. Grow up, relax, and have a straight conversation me just once. I dare you. I know you won't.
On the post: University Requires Students To Pay $180 For 'Art History' Text That Has No Photos Due To Copyright Problems
Re: Response from the school
On the post: The Copyright Act Explicitly Says Disruptive Innovation Should Be Blocked
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People have been questioning me about it for years. I haven't changed my opinion about whether it's infringing. I changed my avatar so people would stop derailing conversations by changing the subject to my avatar. I want to focus on the issues. It's really that simple. People here are so desperate to take me down a notch. That's understandable since I obviously don't drink the same Kool-Aid. So now I've taken away one common thing people pull out to distract attention away from my points. Simple as that. I've explained why I don't think it was infringing several times at length. It still cracks me up that the same people who see noninfringement everywhere they look suddenly have a different point of view. But I digress...
Next >>