On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:59 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > CFJ: I own multiple Machiavelli trading cards. > Arguments: None of the promises I attempted to cash were "copies" of > each other, because (despite the rules defining them as fungible) they > had different properties, namely asset possession. > Evidence: CFJ 2743, I guess.
Arguments: Generally, an object is considered to be a "copy" of another if it is intended to be essentially identical to it. A hand-made copy of a painting is by no means identical to the original, but the copy is intended to resemble the original as closely as possible. If one takes a photograph of a painting and then gives the subject a mustache, the photograph is a derivative work, not a copy—not because the photograph is different from the original painting, but because it is intentionally and significantly different. The seven promises I created are identical in text and functionality, and they were intended to be essentially identical; clearly, I did not intentionally introduce any differences between them. I think it's also clear that when I wrote the word "copy", I intended for all of the promises to be considered copies, because otherwise, I'm open to scams. —Machiavelli
