I forgot the last criterion:  They only have that right if they can enforce it?
(ie, obviously they can't enfore the right in your particular household without
resorting to expensive legal problems, so therefore they don't have that right?)

-Adam

"M. Adam Davis" wrote:
>
> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the person/entity who created
> the work does not have the right to determine how the work is used (as in,
> where, when, and to whom)?
>
> Or are you contending that they only have that right if they use it
> 'responsibly'?
>
> So if I decided that my wildly popular creation could be viewed in the US at
> great quality, but those in another country were limited to a lower quality, or
> perhaps not the whole creation, then you believe that I do not have that right?
> Does it really matter *why* I choose to do so?  Isn't it my right regardless of
> my reasons?
>
> -Adam
>
> Bond Peter S-petbond1 wrote:
>
> > Adam's tirade hinges on one point, and only one point where we disagree -
> > that is that I do not believe I am breaching the copyright on the work by
> > watching it over here, whilst he does.  All of the rest follows from that
> > primary assumption.
>
> tirade: a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or
> harshly censorious language.
>
> I can understand the 'protracted' part, but intemperate, vituperative, or
> harshly censorious?  I certianly did not mean to be abusive in my posting, I'm
> sorry if it seemed that way.  Probably arises from language cues that are
> different between our continents?
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
> mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu