I am not saying what you can sell such a package for. I am just saying that I want you to give me a bandwidth, and tell me how much it costs. I will use as much or as little as I choose. I don't want a per byte charge.
Do you maintain that the boys at the top are doing the per byte game?
Well, in my case dollars is Bahamian dollars which are 1 to 1 with American dollars.
Made up numbers don't actually help us. (I say this kindly.)
Let's say you oversell but watch your bandwidth and buy more whenever usage gets to 80%. Or say you oversell but are up front that at heavy usage times, customers may only get half of the advertised speed but that if these times ever get to be more than x% (say x is 10 or 20) of any day in a month you will buy more upstream.
There are ways to do this and not go to a per byte model. I seariously doubt that at the top of the game they operate on a per byte model. (Anyone care to correct me with facts I am unaware of?)
Ah, Now I think you are talking something different. And that could be done without putting personally identifying info in the objects or files themselves. And it could be optional for each work.
When the copyright holders adopt this option though, let me know.
Hey, I have lost a lot of my music collection to theft and hurricane damage. I would not mind being able to revoce that for free or at cost or even at a greatly reduced price.
I have never seen the players suggest this possibility though.
The big boys seem to want to have it both ways though.
Enforcing copyright is one thing, invading privacy and all the other loony things going on now is something completely different.
While I kind of like the idea of copyleft, if copyrights were to be done away with completely, it would bother me less than not finding some effective fixes to the mess we have today.
If you would like to carry on a londer term conversation on this:
"Answer me this... If you got a hypothetical iTunes music file unemcumbered by ANY sort of DRM..."
Well, you chose a bad person to ask this question if you had a point to make.
Personally, I would not give the copy. I don't want to run the risks. But, because of the risks and how whacked I think the current law and practice is, I am concentrating on Free songs as well as Free Software. Jail time for copyright violation is way over the top in my book.
Personally, I am not going to be buying tunes at a dollar a pop either. Especially in lossy formats, especially with DRM or personal info embedded. Like I say, what happens if I am tired of a song and want to give it to someone.
The copyright holders want it both ways. I am not going to accept that.
My own stuff that I release can generally be had with a copyleft license. Enjoy it if you like it. Sell it and make yourself some extra spending money if you are motivated and can pull it off.
Over selling with proper bandwidth management is cool.
But, the example I gave was one of not over selling. You will notice that I said I would be willing to pay for guaranteed X up / Y down (preferably X = Y). I can live with Y greater than X. So far no overselling.
With ability to go up to a.X up and b.Y down when the network loading can handle it. (a and b are greater than 1!)
And here we have the overselling.
And a and b can be quite a bit greater than 1. Statistics will allow for overselling. If properly managed, customers benefit from it.
I don't have a cell phone. I don't want to pay by the minute for incoming calls. Not at the rates the monopoly down here likes to charge. I don't even want to pay by the minute for outgoing calls for that matter.
But, I said I don't want to pay by the word for my phone calls. I don't want to pay by the byte for my net connections either.
Build the infrastructure to handle what you sell plus some more.
However, I am interested in your opinion. If we pay by the byte, where up the chain of interconnections should this end?
"In my opinion un-metered plans should not be offered at all, there is no such thing as a free lunch. You pay for an upload/download capability, then pay for brackets of monthly bandwidth, and you should get a break on packets transfered during off-peak hours."
No thanks.
Here is something I would buy...
Flat rate. Guaranteed X up / Y down (preferably X = Y) with ability to go up to a.X up and b.Y down when the network loading can handle it. (a and b are greater than 1!)
Over selling is cool down at the home level, just sell and manage it honestly.
Don't give me this per byte game though. And I dont want to pay by the word for my phone calls either.
Patents must be sought as "defensive purposes only" or regular...
Regular, gets much more careful examination, must get everything right from the break.
"defensive only" last twice as long, can't be used to bring a suit, only to defend oneself.
This situation would allow people seeking patents only to prevent them from being given to someone else and used against them to go on doing so without them posing a danger to others.
"which adds innovative claims like contacting the recipient of an order via e-mail or a phone call [flickr.com] to obtain additional info."
I for one see those new claims as astounding innovations. I know that we were all thinking that we would have had to send a runner to get the info. I know, I know, some of you more advanced types may have been thinking "pony express" or even postal mail, but come on, you know most of you were thinking "send a runner" like me. Naturally, cavemen were thinking of going themselves...
So, what is needed is some sort of removable hardware, that is obvious from the outside that it is gone, that makes the gaming machine a gaming machine, when installed and not a gaming machine when it is missing??? Anything device without that piece is not allowed to be out before the public?
Someone from Upper Somewhere buys and old gaming machine, takes it to his country, puts it in his den, can remove this bit of hardware and have fun reprogramming.
"if you want to put your modified code in a gaming device in front of real customers"
And how are you to test this code? It will not run on the machine for testing...
all the best,
drew
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
"I'm not sure what your point is in being obtuse about definitions.... The common definition of theft is taking/using property without permission,"
I am not being obtuse. Further, I gave an example, namely, tresspass, where, in our law at least, to my knowledge, a person would use my real property and not be considered a thief, and not be charged with theft, but rather would be charged with tresspass.
I am trying to understand how your actualw law handles this.
"If two software programs are combined, the combination may, and often does, create more economic value than each individual part would by itself."
I said I don't buy the equation, and I don't. You have made a bald assertion that this is what happens. I don't agree that things are that simple. It could easily be that P+C = (P-X)+(C+S) where X is larger than S. (Just to give one top of the ehad axample.)
Now, as far as redefining things, I did not try to. What I did try and do, and was very up front about it is to point out that I am not concerned with creating such C value. Would you rather I hide this fact from you?
"No, that's done even if you put it into the public domain."
No, it is not, them getting it Free is, it is the protecting that Free status which is lacking.
And I seem to remember various people from Europe saying they didn't think you could put works in the public domain in their countries. Can you put a work of yours in the public domain in your country should you so desire?
all the best,
drew
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
"The violation of intellectual property rights, like the violation of physical property rights, is generally referred to as theft, for example, as discussed in the 2000 EU report [europa.eu] on organised crime."
Oh, I know it is often referred to as theft, and discussed as theft. Can you point to anywhere that it is defined as theft in law? Was that report a law?
Tresspass is a violation of my real property. If someone tresspass on my front lawn, are they a thief? Will they be charged with theft? What did they take from me that I no longer have?
"No, the issue is the value created, not to whom it flows. If you have publicly available software P, and closed software C, the total value of combining them, V, isn't V = P + C, it's V = P + C + S, where S is the additional value created by the combination."
Don't buy the equation yet. I see S as just more C.
Since I find C defective in the first place, having more C is of no value to me.
The question for me is does P grow faster when copyleft is in play than when it is not in play.
And if I am right and S is in fact more C, the real for you should be does P+C grow faster when P has copyleft in play then when P does not have copyleft in play.
(I am aware I am substituting code for value in a way.
"What do you mean by 'Freedom'"
What I mean is that the people who get my work are Free to do certain things with it. That comes with or without copyleft. Copyleft is an attempt to protect that freedom once given rahter than letting it be removed by less well intentioned players.
There has to be another way to handle this issue that does not require the non-Free aspects to kick in.
Even if it is just a light that shows then "blessed" code is running and does not show when non "blessed" code is running.
(one of the first things that popped into my head, but still. the rest were not as simple.)
all the best,
drew
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
"Under EU law, for example, there is the concept of intellectual property. Violation of copyright is viewed as theft of intellectual property, so yes, if someone violates your copyright, they can be said to be stealing from you."
Can you give specific examples from the law?
I can see stealing you copyrights so that now I am seen as the copyright owner being considered theft. Not making copies in violation of someones copyrights. Illegal, yes, theft, no. I amalways open to learning new things though.
"Closed source code generates value for its owners, even if not for the open source community, at least not directly"
Fine, but that value comes from... Their customers. And those customers do not get any such value.
"The intuitive view is that BSD-style licensing will probably lead to more value overall"
I do not find this intuitive in any way.
"To me, this just looks like a more confusing way of saying the same thing. Isn't what you call 'freedom' just the concept that 'I'll share with you if you share with me', with the 'me' possibly referring to a community rather than an individual?"
No, not at all. Even if all I ever do is write and release Free works, and never use anyone else's Free works, I can still be concerned with Freedom.
However, in general the two things may always go together or they may not. Even if they do, they are still two things and some can value one, some can value the other, some can value both.
all the best,
drew
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
[But don't think for one second that the GPL is about "freedom".]
Yes it is. Free licenses that are copyleft are about giving and protecting freedom. Free licenses that are not copyleft are about giving but not protecting freedom.
What freedom, that in your view a copyleft license denies you is an essential freedom for you? One which you must have in order to be free?
all the best,
drew
Re:The next "One major danger"...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
"I'm getting tired of hearing this same argument ("The GPL is supposed to be about freedom, but look at all the restrictions it imposes!!!") in various different incarnations pop up every time the GPL is discussed."
What I am interested in the answer to is which freedoms that the GPL denies them are essential freedoms for them.
The freedom to deny that freedom to others?
The freedom to give someone else the right to deny that freedom to others?
Some other freedom that I can't think of right now.
I also wonder if anyone who is not against copyleft for code in general but does not like the GPL in particular can think of a better way to get the job done license wise.
"The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers, even occasionally, is to be expected. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and organizations."
Without thinking deeply about it yet, this business exception bothers me as well.
Any one seen any discussion on how this impacts partnerships and sole proprietorship's?
all the best,
drew
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
"If someone gives you something, you're not stealing from them."
Correct. Mind you, if someone violates your copyrights, they are not stealing from you either, but that is a different issue.
"People who use BSD-like licences are giving away their work, usually because they want to maximise the amount of value others get from it."
I would say rather that the may want to maximise the amount of value first generation others get from it. (Or I guess, really, up to the generation where it goes non-Free.) Perhaps. Plus, to go extreme like you do with the GPL, even the BSD boys are not giving away their work. They are exchanging it fo the credit you have to give them. To give it away, you would pretty much have to find some way to dedicate the code to the public domain and possibly even in an anonymous way.
Even so, this and your parallel GPL point really only apply to those in position to choose the license.
I prefer copyleft and look for GPL products ahead of BSD or other non-copyleft programs. Once in a while I send in an improvement to some piece of code. (Very rarely, I have not kept what programming skills I ever had up to date.) If I have ever sent in a patch to non-copyleft code, it is not because I want my code used in a non-copyleft way at all. But a small patch, on a large program that I have no wish whatsoever to try and fork and maintain? So be it. I figure the same thing must apply in reverse to people who prefer non-copyleft code but send in a patch for GPL code.
"People who use the GPL are not giving away their work, they're making an agreement to exchange it for the work of others."
Not quite. Some view things long those lines. Others see things along the lines of ensuring the freedom as oposed to allowing someone to reduce them beyond what is necessary to ensure them.
Once, again, the FSF is using something they don't believe in to undo the effects of that thing.
Have you ever heard of using the enemies weapons against him?
Have you ever heard the phrase "Hoist by his own petard"...?
They are not the same thing.
Until the law changes, the rights exist. Or at least the powers exist. In law. They can use what is at hand to try and undo the damage, or they can let others make things worse. If you see them take up the arguments of intellectual property, or if you see them pushing for longer copyright terms, or if you see them trying ot restrict the right to run programs with EULAs, or if you see them pushing for jail terms for copyright violators, let me know. Until then, I am not gonna buy your argument that the two groups actions amount to the same thing. Sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not saying what you can sell such a package for. I am just saying that I want you to give me a bandwidth, and tell me how much it costs. I will use as much or as little as I choose. I don't want a per byte charge.
Do you maintain that the boys at the top are doing the per byte game?
all the best,
drew
Well, in my case dollars is Bahamian dollars which are 1 to 1 with American dollars.
Made up numbers don't actually help us. (I say this kindly.)
Let's say you oversell but watch your bandwidth and buy more whenever usage gets to 80%. Or say you oversell but are up front that at heavy usage times, customers may only get half of the advertised speed but that if these times ever get to be more than x% (say x is 10 or 20) of any day in a month you will buy more upstream.
There are ways to do this and not go to a per byte model. I seariously doubt that at the top of the game they operate on a per byte model. (Anyone care to correct me with facts I am unaware of?)
all the best,
drew
Ah, Now I think you are talking something different. And that could be done without putting personally identifying info in the objects or files themselves. And it could be optional for each work.
When the copyright holders adopt this option though, let me know.
Hey, I have lost a lot of my music collection to theft and hurricane damage. I would not mind being able to revoce that for free or at cost or even at a greatly reduced price.
I have never seen the players suggest this possibility though.
The big boys seem to want to have it both ways though.
all the best,
drew
Where are you getting these numbers from?
BTW - basically I pay $100 per month for my connection.
all the best,
drew
Enforcing copyright is one thing, invading privacy and all the other loony things going on now is something completely different.
- on-copyright-offensive.html
While I kind of like the idea of copyleft, if copyrights were to be done away with completely, it would bother me less than not finding some effective fixes to the mess we have today.
If you would like to carry on a londer term conversation on this:
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts
all the best,
drew
"Answer me this... If you got a hypothetical iTunes music file unemcumbered by ANY sort of DRM..."
Well, you chose a bad person to ask this question if you had a point to make.
Personally, I would not give the copy. I don't want to run the risks. But, because of the risks and how whacked I think the current law and practice is, I am concentrating on Free songs as well as Free Software. Jail time for copyright violation is way over the top in my book.
Personally, I am not going to be buying tunes at a dollar a pop either. Especially in lossy formats, especially with DRM or personal info embedded. Like I say, what happens if I am tired of a song and want to give it to someone.
The copyright holders want it both ways. I am not going to accept that.
My own stuff that I release can generally be had with a copyleft license. Enjoy it if you like it. Sell it and make yourself some extra spending money if you are motivated and can pull it off.
all the best,
drew
Over selling with proper bandwidth management is cool.
But, the example I gave was one of not over selling. You will notice that I said I would be willing to pay for guaranteed X up / Y down (preferably X = Y). I can live with Y greater than X. So far no overselling.
With ability to go up to a.X up and b.Y down when the network loading can handle it. (a and b are greater than 1!)
And here we have the overselling.
And a and b can be quite a bit greater than 1. Statistics will allow for overselling. If properly managed, customers benefit from it.
I don't have a cell phone. I don't want to pay by the minute for incoming calls. Not at the rates the monopoly down here likes to charge. I don't even want to pay by the minute for outgoing calls for that matter.
But, I said I don't want to pay by the word for my phone calls. I don't want to pay by the byte for my net connections either.
Build the infrastructure to handle what you sell plus some more.
However, I am interested in your opinion. If we pay by the byte, where up the chain of interconnections should this end?
all the best,
drew
"That's not nasty. That's fair. It's YOUR music file"
The problem is deeper and your statement point to it.
I don't want things I buy to be mine in that way.
I buy a CD. It is my CD. I don't want my name and address embedded in it though.
If I give it away as a gift, it is now not mine anymore. See the problem?
all the best,
drew
"In my opinion un-metered plans should not be offered at all, there is no such thing as a free lunch. You pay for an upload/download capability, then pay for brackets of monthly bandwidth, and you should get a break on packets transfered during off-peak hours."
No thanks.
Here is something I would buy...
Flat rate. Guaranteed X up / Y down (preferably X = Y) with ability to go up to a.X up and b.Y down when the network loading can handle it. (a and b are greater than 1!)
Over selling is cool down at the home level, just sell and manage it honestly.
Don't give me this per byte game though. And I dont want to pay by the word for my phone calls either.
all the best,
drew
Free tech help only to those who don't use company X. If you use them, you can pay me for help so I at least can better afford not to use them.
???
all the best,
drew
I think an idea I had this morning has the potential to to fix this problem...
o r-patent-reform.html
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/06/simple-idea-f
I would like your thoughts...
all the best,
drew
This idea I had this morning might help and is simple enough that it may have a chance of getting through:
o r-patent-reform.html
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/06/simple-idea-f
Patents must be sought as "defensive purposes only" or regular...
Regular, gets much more careful examination, must get everything right from the break.
"defensive only" last twice as long, can't be used to bring a suit, only to defend oneself.
This situation would allow people seeking patents only to prevent them from being given to someone else and used against them to go on doing so without them posing a danger to others.
Thoughts?
all the best,
drew
Well, I had this idea this morning and can't remember seeing it before.
o r-patent-reform.html
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/06/simple-idea-f
Have you seen this before? If so, links would be welcome.
all the best,
drew
"which adds innovative claims like contacting the recipient of an order via e-mail or a phone call [flickr.com] to obtain additional info."
I for one see those new claims as astounding innovations. I know that we were all thinking that we would have had to send a runner to get the info. I know, I know, some of you more advanced types may have been thinking "pony express" or even postal mail, but come on, you know most of you were thinking "send a runner" like me. Naturally, cavemen were thinking of going themselves...
all the best,
drew
So, what is needed is some sort of removable hardware, that is obvious from the outside that it is gone, that makes the gaming machine a gaming machine, when installed and not a gaming machine when it is missing??? Anything device without that piece is not allowed to be out before the public?
Someone from Upper Somewhere buys and old gaming machine, takes it to his country, puts it in his den, can remove this bit of hardware and have fun reprogramming.
"if you want to put your modified code in a gaming device in front of real customers"
And how are you to test this code? It will not run on the machine for testing...
all the best,
drew
"I'm not sure what your point is in being obtuse about definitions. ... The common definition of theft is taking/using property without permission,"
I am not being obtuse. Further, I gave an example, namely, tresspass, where, in our law at least, to my knowledge, a person would use my real property and not be considered a thief, and not be charged with theft, but rather would be charged with tresspass.
I am trying to understand how your actualw law handles this.
"If two software programs are combined, the combination may, and often does, create more economic value than each individual part would by itself."
I said I don't buy the equation, and I don't. You have made a bald assertion that this is what happens. I don't agree that things are that simple. It could easily be that P+C = (P-X)+(C+S) where X is larger than S. (Just to give one top of the ehad axample.)
Now, as far as redefining things, I did not try to. What I did try and do, and was very up front about it is to point out that I am not concerned with creating such C value. Would you rather I hide this fact from you?
"No, that's done even if you put it into the public domain."
No, it is not, them getting it Free is, it is the protecting that Free status which is lacking.
And I seem to remember various people from Europe saying they didn't think you could put works in the public domain in their countries. Can you put a work of yours in the public domain in your country should you so desire?
all the best,
drew
"The violation of intellectual property rights, like the violation of physical property rights, is generally referred to as theft, for example, as discussed in the 2000 EU report [europa.eu] on organised crime."
Oh, I know it is often referred to as theft, and discussed as theft. Can you point to anywhere that it is defined as theft in law? Was that report a law?
Tresspass is a violation of my real property. If someone tresspass on my front lawn, are they a thief? Will they be charged with theft? What did they take from me that I no longer have?
"No, the issue is the value created, not to whom it flows. If you have publicly available software P, and closed software C, the total value of combining them, V, isn't V = P + C, it's V = P + C + S, where S is the additional value created by the combination."
Don't buy the equation yet. I see S as just more C.
Since I find C defective in the first place, having more C is of no value to me.
The question for me is does P grow faster when copyleft is in play than when it is not in play.
And if I am right and S is in fact more C, the real for you should be does P+C grow faster when P has copyleft in play then when P does not have copyleft in play.
(I am aware I am substituting code for value in a way.
"What do you mean by 'Freedom'"
What I mean is that the people who get my work are Free to do certain things with it. That comes with or without copyleft. Copyleft is an attempt to protect that freedom once given rahter than letting it be removed by less well intentioned players.
all the best,
drew
There has to be another way to handle this issue that does not require the non-Free aspects to kick in.
Even if it is just a light that shows then "blessed" code is running and does not show when non "blessed" code is running.
(one of the first things that popped into my head, but still. the rest were not as simple.)
all the best,
drew
"Under EU law, for example, there is the concept of intellectual property. Violation of copyright is viewed as theft of intellectual property, so yes, if someone violates your copyright, they can be said to be stealing from you."
Can you give specific examples from the law?
I can see stealing you copyrights so that now I am seen as the copyright owner being considered theft. Not making copies in violation of someones copyrights. Illegal, yes, theft, no. I amalways open to learning new things though.
"Closed source code generates value for its owners, even if not for the open source community, at least not directly"
Fine, but that value comes from... Their customers. And those customers do not get any such value.
"The intuitive view is that BSD-style licensing will probably lead to more value overall"
I do not find this intuitive in any way.
"To me, this just looks like a more confusing way of saying the same thing. Isn't what you call 'freedom' just the concept that 'I'll share with you if you share with me', with the 'me' possibly referring to a community rather than an individual?"
No, not at all. Even if all I ever do is write and release Free works, and never use anyone else's Free works, I can still be concerned with Freedom.
However, in general the two things may always go together or they may not. Even if they do, they are still two things and some can value one, some can value the other, some can value both.
all the best,
drew
[But don't think for one second that the GPL is about "freedom".]
Yes it is. Free licenses that are copyleft are about giving and protecting freedom. Free licenses that are not copyleft are about giving but not protecting freedom.
What freedom, that in your view a copyleft license denies you is an essential freedom for you? One which you must have in order to be free?
all the best,
drew
"I'm getting tired of hearing this same argument ("The GPL is supposed to be about freedom, but look at all the restrictions it imposes!!!") in various different incarnations pop up every time the GPL is discussed."
What I am interested in the answer to is which freedoms that the GPL denies them are essential freedoms for them.
The freedom to deny that freedom to others?
The freedom to give someone else the right to deny that freedom to others?
Some other freedom that I can't think of right now.
I also wonder if anyone who is not against copyleft for code in general but does not like the GPL in particular can think of a better way to get the job done license wise.
all the best,
drew
"The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers, even occasionally, is to be expected. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and organizations."
Without thinking deeply about it yet, this business exception bothers me as well.
Any one seen any discussion on how this impacts partnerships and sole proprietorship's?
all the best,
drew
"If someone gives you something, you're not stealing from them."
Correct. Mind you, if someone violates your copyrights, they are not stealing from you either, but that is a different issue.
"People who use BSD-like licences are giving away their work, usually because they want to maximise the amount of value others get from it."
I would say rather that the may want to maximise the amount of value first generation others get from it. (Or I guess, really, up to the generation where it goes non-Free.) Perhaps. Plus, to go extreme like you do with the GPL, even the BSD boys are not giving away their work. They are exchanging it fo the credit you have to give them. To give it away, you would pretty much have to find some way to dedicate the code to the public domain and possibly even in an anonymous way.
Even so, this and your parallel GPL point really only apply to those in position to choose the license.
I prefer copyleft and look for GPL products ahead of BSD or other non-copyleft programs. Once in a while I send in an improvement to some piece of code. (Very rarely, I have not kept what programming skills I ever had up to date.) If I have ever sent in a patch to non-copyleft code, it is not because I want my code used in a non-copyleft way at all. But a small patch, on a large program that I have no wish whatsoever to try and fork and maintain? So be it. I figure the same thing must apply in reverse to people who prefer non-copyleft code but send in a patch for GPL code.
"People who use the GPL are not giving away their work, they're making an agreement to exchange it for the work of others."
Not quite. Some view things long those lines. Others see things along the lines of ensuring the freedom as oposed to allowing someone to reduce them beyond what is necessary to ensure them.
all the best,
drew
Once, again, the FSF is using something they don't believe in to undo the effects of that thing.
Have you ever heard of using the enemies weapons against him?
Have you ever heard the phrase "Hoist by his own petard"...?
They are not the same thing.
Until the law changes, the rights exist. Or at least the powers exist. In law. They can use what is at hand to try and undo the damage, or they can let others make things worse. If you see them take up the arguments of intellectual property, or if you see them pushing for longer copyright terms, or if you see them trying ot restrict the right to run programs with EULAs, or if you see them pushing for jail terms for copyright violators, let me know. Until then, I am not gonna buy your argument that the two groups actions amount to the same thing. Sorry.
all the best,
drew
Far from it.
One set is trying to use the law for all it's worth and to get stronger and more restrictive laws passed.
The other set is trying to use those laws to undo their negative effects.
Do you seriously expect people in the know to buy the idea that the **AA buys and the FSF boys are the same?
How many teenagers and grandmothers have the FSF boys sued? How much is their total settlements from such suits?
all the best,
drew