campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (06/24/91)
Bill Kennedy, I'm appalled. In the ultimate "blame the victim" trip, you accused Len Rose of responsibility for wrecking careers and for raids on innocent bystanders. "Oh," you concede, "these wrongs were actually perpetrated by the feds, but if Len had just kept his nose a little cleaner they never would have happened, therefore he is responsible." Bullshit! What the feds did was *wrong*. Stupid, irresponsible, and immoral. The fact that some of their actions were provoked by Len Rose does not exonerate them. Nor do their actions exonerate Len Rose. Look, if I spot a vandal trying to spraypaint my house, and I whip out my Uzi and empty a clip at him, accidentally killing the neighbor who happened to be standing nearby -- it's *my* fault, not the vandal's. The vandal is guilty of vandalism. I'm guilty of manslaughter (at least). Even if I'm generally known in the neighborhood as an Uzi-toting maniac, the vandal is *still* not guilty of manslaughter. Stupidity, yes; manslaughter, no. Len Rose is probably (I say probably since I'm not privy to all the details of the case) guilty of stupidity, indiscretion, carelessness, and a callous attitude towards intellectual property rights. Heck, probably copyright violation too. However, it's the feds who raided Steve Jackson Games. Len Rose did not make them do it. It's the feds who raided your Unnamed Person in Austin. Len Rose did not make them do it. It's AT&T and Southeastern Bell who harrassed their employees and ruined their careers. Len Rose did not make them do it. I think it's cruel to blame Len for the actions of a bunch of bullying thugs with no sense of proportion and no respect for the Constitution. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc., 120 Fulton Street campbell@redsox.bsw.com Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (USA)
allen@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG (Allen Gwinn) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun24.025209.16106@redsox.bsw.com> campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes: >Len Rose is probably (I say probably since I'm not privy to all the details >of the case) guilty of stupidity, indiscretion, carelessness, and a callous >attitude towards intellectual property rights. Heck, probably copyright >violation too. ...you left out theft and transportation of (and receiving) stolen merchandise. -- Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.lonestar.org) "If SCO would like to use this server in one of their products they have to pay $100 for every copy they redistribute, cause I don't like this company and their braindamaged products." - Thomas Roell on The Santa Cruz Operation
jdevoto@Apple.COM (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.122333.7605@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG> allen@sulaco.Lonestar.ORG (Allen Gwinn) writes: >In article <1991Jun24.025209.16106@redsox.bsw.com> >campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes: >>Len Rose is probably (I say probably since I'm not privy to all the details >>of the case) guilty of stupidity, indiscretion, carelessness, and a callous >>attitude towards intellectual property rights. Heck, probably copyright >>violation too. > >...you left out theft and transportation of (and receiving) stolen >merchandise. I suppose you *can* call copyright violation "theft" in some sense, but it seems a bit of a stretch. -- ========= jeanne a. e. devoto ======================================== jdevoto@apple.com | You may not distribute this article under a jdevoto@well.sf.ca.us | compilation copyright without my permission. ______________________________________________________________________ Apple Computer and I are not authorized | CI$: 72411,165 to speak for each other. |