That is definitely not their point. Their point is, quite simply, “don’t punish us, bro”. They don’t give a rat’s ass about the law in general or what it means for other people, they just want to make sure they specifically can do what they please without repercussion.
I think they try to argue around the diffrence of sharing activly (=illegal) and downloading (=valid) with this argument it does not matter if you download one book or 1 million books
That is definitely not their point. Their point is, quite simply, “don’t punish us, bro”. They don’t give a rat’s ass about the law in general or what it means for other people, they just want to make sure they specifically can do what they please without repercussion.
I think they try to argue around the diffrence of sharing activly (=illegal) and downloading (=valid) with this argument it does not matter if you download one book or 1 million books
Their point is that they are not.
It would set the precedent for everyone. The real difference is that they can beg the question and people like Aaron Schwartz couldn't.
Aaron Schwartz's lawyer could have posed exactly the same claim.
It wouldn't have succeeded, just like this won't.
Lawyers will deploy any possible argument, just in case, even if it has a 0.1% chance of working because why wouldn't you?
1 reply →
No, this is a case of "rules for thee but not for me".