I offer one Max Schutz card for one Machiavelli card On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Tanner Swett <swe...@mail.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> 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 >
