Re: Why Is the Supply of IDIOT Mountain Bikers ENDLESS???

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> On 21 Jun 2008 12:50:54 -0700, nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
> 
> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >
> >> On 20 Jun 2008 14:15:16 -0700, nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> >> Right. A victimless "crime".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not true - if the author decided to publish the email he sent you
in a
> >> >> >mountain-biking magazine (for example), having it appear first on
> >> >> >usenet would reduce the interest the magazine would have in it. 
So
> >> >> >you did violate the law in a way that could hurt someone
economically,
> >> >> >at least in principle.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Not in reality, where most of us live. Show us the marketable part
of
> >> >> that email! This should be good!
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement was a
victimless
> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
> >> 
> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been victimized. I've
> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is WORTHLESS. Hence the
> >> only victim is ME.
> >
> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've committed a
> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and hence
> >worthless.
> 
> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash -- a
> victimless crime.

Run that one past a judge.  Or better yet, try it as an experiment,
repeating enough times to get cought.  My guess is that we might be
spared from your presense on usenet for some time.

-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB