On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:10:52 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said: > > > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when > > > you let Person > > > B do X without complaint". > > > > Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and > > failing to act in another. We need not act in every possible case where > > we could act to preserve our right to act in a particular case. > > You *do* however need to be aware that in some cases, public inactivity > and/or statements that something will not be acted on may estoppel any > future attempts to enforce something.
Exactly. However, inactivity can be construed as lack of knowledge that something is occurring. (ie: the RIAA didn't start acting on file-sharing until they became aware of Napster) But for said estoppel to not be a factor you will have to prosecute and/or file suit on all instances of the activity. (And filing a suit and then dropping it against some of the people that you filed suit against - ie: you file suit against persons A and B and then drop the suit against person A in its entirety - because you only wanted to prosecute person B for the action, you are leaving yourself open to lawsuits on a number of counts.) DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
