On Jul 28, 8:31 am, "Edwin" <c...@pple.com> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message > > news:alangbaker-9058BB.15175117072008@shawnews... > > > > > In article <20069$487fc384$9...@news.teranews.com>, > > "Crab Apple" <c...@pple.com> wrote: > > >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message > >>news:alangbaker-203501.14424617072008@shawnews... > >> > In article <1a6f8$487fb4ac$27...@news.teranews.com>, > >> > "Crab Apple" <c...@pple.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message > >> >>news:alangbaker-E7BBB1.13453117072008@shawnews... > >> >> > In article <db761$487f9d34$3...@news.teranews.com>, > >> >> > "Crab Apple" <c...@pple.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message > >> >> >>news:alangbaker-ED7F35.11131617072008@shawnews... > >> >> >> > In article <39e7b$487f6dc0$...@news.teranews.com>, > >> >> >> > "Crab Apple" <c...@pple.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> "Kirby" <K...@songbrd.biz> wrote in message > >> >> >> >>news:KG-89D601.21395316072008@netnews.comcast.net... > >> >> >> >> > In article <8342f$487e6427$13...@news.teranews.com>, > >> >> >> >> > "Crab Apple" <c...@pple.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> "nospamatall" <nospamat...@iol.ie> wrote in message > >> >> >> >> >>news:mzsfk.26373$j7.470513@news.indigo.ie... > >> >> >> >> >> > Crab Apple wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> I have rights beyond what Apple chooses to list in its > >> >> >> >> >> >> software > >> >> >> >> >> >> terms, > >> >> >> >> >> >> and where the two conflict my rights trump Apple's terms. > > >> >> >> >> >> > You are confusing being able to do something and having a > >> >> >> >> >> > right > >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> > do > >> >> >> >> >> > it. > > >> >> >> >> >> No, I'm not. > > >> >> >> >> >> > From your rabid responses to those who try to point this > >> >> >> >> >> > out > >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> > you, > > >> >> >> >> >> Rabid responses? What's rabid in anything I wrote? > > >> >> >> >> >> > it appears that this mistaken view of yours is causing no > >> >> >> >> >> > small > >> >> >> >> >> > amount > >> >> >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> >> >> > frustration. > > >> >> >> >> >> I'm neither frustrated nor rabid. > > >> >> >> >> >> > Just realize the fact that you have no rights other than > >> >> >> >> >> > those > >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> > people > >> >> >> >> >> > who run the world choose to give you. If people understood > >> >> >> >> >> > that, > >> >> >> >> >> > things > >> >> >> >> >> > might be different. > > >> >> >> >> >> Apple Inc. doesn't run the world, nor do they dictate my > >> >> >> >> >> rights. > > >> >> >> >> > In this case, that is Intellectual Property Rights, Apple does > >> >> >> >> > dictate > >> >> >> >> > what you > >> >> >> >> > can do, just like any other licensed product. > > >> >> >> >> It says I have to pay for the software and not use it on more > >> >> >> >> than > >> >> >> >> one > >> >> >> >> computer at a time. Anything more is abuse of copyright laws. > > >> >> >> >> > I'll bet you think that if you hire an artist to photograph > >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> > or > >> >> >> >> > something you > >> >> >> >> > wanted photographed and you paid for it, you think you "own" > >> >> >> >> > that > >> >> >> >> > photography > >> >> >> >> > and you'd be wrong. > > >> >> >> >> Would he have the right to tell me which brand of photo album or > >> >> >> >> picture > >> >> >> >> frame I can display the photograph in? > > >> >> >> > A photographer can certainly specify to what use you may put a > >> >> >> > photograph licensed from him. > > >> >> >> Are you answering my question above with a "yes?" > > >> >> > Yes. > > >> >> You may think so, but I'm using any picture frame I want to. > > >> > That's because the particular terms under which you purchased that > >> > photo > >> > don't preclude it. > > >> That's because nobody could enforce such terms. > > > They absolutely could. > > No they couldn't. > > > > >> > Now answer my question: > > >> > Can you use a picture license for use in one magazine in an entirely > >> > different one? > > >> No, but what does public display and distribution of pictures have to do > >> with running software on a personal computer for oneself? Your > >> analogy > >> makes no sense. > > > It makes perfect sense. > > No it doesn't. > > > Intellectual property is *licensed*. > > I see you have to drop back to an abstract level. Distribution of pictures > are not license by opening the package they come in. They're not licensed > by some text included with them that says if you use them you agree to > certain terms. > > You have to agree to the terms of > > > the license unless those terms are in violation of the law of the land. > > Now you're starting to get it, in the last part of your sentence. Only > terms the law allows can be enforced. > > > You've yet to show a single thing that indicates that Apple's license is > > in violation of anything. > > Since I never claimed they were in violation of anything, I have no need to > show anything.
How bizarre. I am reading this using Google Groups, and all of the posts of yours that just came on-line say they were posted yesterday. Is htat something strange from Teranews, or Google Groups? -- Dave Fritzinger Honolulu, HI
