Not a thief!

Are you kidding? He has TWO unaccredited doctorates, and according to numerous spams that arrive in my inbox each day, those are the best kind!

 

So, using your line of reasoning, no one should be prosecuted for bank robbery if enough people commit the crime and/or it becomes difficult to prosecute the cases.

 

No but people steal pens from me all the time and I haven't called the police yet.

Something that is insignificant to the justice system is simply insignificant to the justice system and you know this better than anyone here.

I haven't denied that copyrights are legit - simply who cares in an insignificant case.

 

I believe that it boils down to honesty and personal integrity. I'm not claiming that it indicates a huge character flaw or anything but it was wrong and the proper response for fnhayes (IMHO) would have been to simply apologize and delete his copy that he'd downloaded. I think that it is telling that instead he attacks Rich and denies that he did anything wrong.

 

Please read the email correspondence that appeared at CollegeHints a few hours ago - posted by Henrik.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

So we are at the point that a single payment was made to UMI/Proquest for a document and then multiple copies were downloaded and distributed to several different people who then proceeded to dissect the document and make numerous comments about it.

I would assume that to make these comments the personal in question should have read it.

Then the author of the document makes the statement that the wrong document was posted and UMI/Proquest retracts the original document pending receiving the official document.

The question under consideration is did the personnel who downloaded and distribute the original document violate any legal points.

Umi/Proquest though out the whole issue is being their usual ambiguous and unhelpful self. Responding with generalities so that they can not be accused of any wrongdoing. The personnel who downloaded or distributed the document point to the responses from UMI/Proquest as proof that they did no wrong.

From the information I have gotten from contact with UMI/Proquest is that purchasing a document from them gives the PURCHASER the right to download ONE complete copy of the document for their own non-commercial use.

My non-legal take on the whole issue is that anyone besides the purchaser who downloaded the document owes UMI/Proquest the download fee. Anyone who made copies and distributed the document violated US copyright law.

And the claims of innocence remind me Richard Nixon's profession of innocence. http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/herblock/crook.html

And I believe them just as much as I believed him.

 

Since the document was not what it was advertised as being, anyone who paid to download it is entitled to his money back, no? Yes, there was a copyright violation, but I'd be hard put to assess monetary damages.

 

My joke about it was that the original purchaser, who distributed the link to French--who put it on a.e.d.--didn't even get what he paid for and should get his money back!

As for the rest....