Posted by dorayme on 01/24/06 05:28

In article <fKfBf.6944$NS6.6264@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
Jose <teacherjh@aol.nojunk.com> wrote:

> > Someone may want to stop the average passerby grabbing things
> > from the front room. Best to at least keep the front door locked.
> > This is not going to protect the stuff from the cannier thief.
>
> Maybe true when stuff stolen from the front room is no longer available
> to the front room.
>

What is this supposed to mean?

> Stealing images is different. The harm (such as it is) comes from a
> different place.
>
> (IMHO) The clueless are not the ones that generally harm one, but the
> clueful are. So, defending against the clueless is... er... clueless.

You can guess but you cannot know in advance what contexts there
are in which folk might want to make it harder to copy images and
so you cannot judge that it might always be clueless.

If people were not so - let us say - enthusiastic about
rubbishing poor schmucks, I think I would not be defending them.

I know about schmuckery you see...

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]