|
abates17 (July 13, 2008 at 12:14 am)
"it still shows youre wrong to claim"And you still don't realize that "evidence that Rove actually violated any copyright law" is a subset of "evidence that Rove may have violated copyright law." You have yet to present anything that fits in the first category. You are as wrong now as you were two months ago.
LiberalViewer (July 12, 2008 at 1:02 am)
MORE:So, again, even using the definition your own dictionary tells u was the wrong one to use, u were still wrong to claim:"There is no evidence that Rove actually violated any copyright law"And, your many other false claims u still fail to address include:"it is never illegal to display a bootleg DVD""either an action is illegal, or it is not""The usage of the word 'exhibit' is in U.S. Copyright Law" and"I am not a lawyer, so nothing I say is legal advice"Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer (July 12, 2008 at 12:56 am)
abates,Now it's been TWO months, but, STILL, the dictionary YOU CHOSE at tinyurl(.)com/2geqrq says to use a different definition for "LAW" and EVEN IF u plug your wrong definition into your quote it still shows youre wrong to claim: "there is no [available body of facts or information indicating WHETHER it's true] that Rove actually violated any copyright law." So, even under the wrong definition u were wrong to say: "There is no evidence that Rove actually violated any copyright law"MORE:
abates17 (April 25, 2008 at 4:30 pm)
You had a month to craft a response, and THIS is what you came up with??"says to use a different definition"I choose which definition to use, not the dictionary. Are you saying the facts you have presented do not fit the dictionary definition of "evidence"? Quit dodging the question."they are '[facts or information indicating WHETHER] Rove actually violated any copyright law'"But they are not evidence THAT Rove actually violated any copyright law. You keep omitting the word "that".
LiberalViewer (April 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm)
MORE:So, again, even using the definition your own dictionary tells u was the wrong one to use, u were still wrong to claim:"There is no evidence that Rove actually violated any copyright law"And several other false claims u made and still fail to address include:"it is never illegal to display a bootleg DVD""either an action is illegal, or it is not" "it is not illegal to exhibit a bootleg DVD" and"I am not a lawyer, so nothing I say is legal advice"Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer (April 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm)
abates,I keep asking about it b/c u used a synonym excuse to claim u weren't wrong so, AGAIN, are u giving up your synonym excuse and admitting u were wrong to claim: "The usage of the word 'exhibit' is in U.S. Copyright Law?"And, again, the dictionary YOU CHOSE at tinyurl(.)com/2geqrq says to use a different definition for "LAW" tho even your wrong definition fits statements Rove made b/c they are "[facts or information indicating WHETHER] Rove actually violated any copyright law"MORE:
abates17 (April 1, 2008 at 11:28 pm)
"If Mr Rove paid for the bootleg then I presume he did commit a crime...."Not according to copyright law. Purchasing a copyrighted work is not mentioned anywhere, only displaying or distributing it. Even if the seller were in violation of copyright, the buyer would not be.
jandrewclark (April 1, 2008 at 6:50 pm)
I hope the government has better thing to do then run down every copyright infringement case in the US.
TECHKLEC (March 30, 2008 at 7:35 pm)
I didn't knopw that being an asshole is a felony.
Capathy (March 27, 2008 at 7:06 pm)
Isn't putting stuff online violating copywrite?If Mr Rove paid for the bootleg then I presume he did commit a crime.... |
