Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by syshum 2976 days ago
>> It's no different than slapping Chiquita labels on different bananas and then turning around and saying "what's the problem, they were good bananas" when you're caught.

It is very different, Chiquita primary business is selling banana's

Dell Business is not selling Dell Restore Discs.. It is selling the computers for which the Restore Discs are for

If you can see the difference in these things well I really do not know where to go from here.

>> But let's not only trot out that defense when we're looking at white-collar criminals who remind us of ourselves and look the other way for others.

You know nothing about my advocacy or when I do or do not "trot out that defense". I am almost universally Anti-Statism, being a Libertarian I talk about and advocate against all manner of government abuse, most of which is more massive (like police murdering people) than this.

Simply because I am also using it here does not mean I only talk about it for " white-collar criminals" nor do those other abuses negate this abuse. If that is your metric then no one should ever complain about the US Government at all since NK is worse... It is bullshit argument

> The fact remains, though, that this guy was engaged in a for-profit criminal enterprise, and his defenders do not seem to even want to acknowledge that.

I dont believe it should be considered a criminal enterprise.

I bet however you largely support the current Copyright and Patent laws, I do not, most of this persons supporters do not either. That is the disconnect I believe. People that support the concept of "intellectual Property" want to throw the book at this guy, people that generally oppose the concept of government created monopolies on ideas aka intellectual privilege do not believe this guy did anything wrong.

1 comments

It goes beyond a question of intellectual property to knowingly selling customers something other than what they believe they are buying. To take another example, you could argue, I think probably correctly, that there is no sensible reason to avoid eating genetically-modified foods. But I do not think it would be ethical or that it should be legal to put a label on your food that says "NO GMOS" when, in fact, you are using GMOs. The argument here seems to be the same -- it should be OK because the result was the same, if you bought the counterfeit disc and installed it, as if you got what you thought you were buying. I don't think that's correct.