Re: [photo-3d] Re: Copyright concerns & George's response, or Too Many Mike's

[Mike Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

CanterMike@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> ---  Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxx> wrote (in part):
> 
> > Actually Mike is right, you are in violation of the Copyright laws.
> > His example, although correct,
> 
> Please let's all be careful here, lest we get our Mikes mixed up.  I,
> Mike CANTER, only pointed out George's brazen admission to violating
> Federal law.  Mike KERSENBROCK responded to George's initial defense
> with one (admittedly extreme) scenario.

I'm the other Mike, and note that I literally said it was 
extreme in my  posting -- when presenting a concept, extreme 
examples make the concept clearer, even if the magnitude is 
excessive.  :-)

Some things should be left to the realm of silence and an
occasional smile and wink of an eye rather than trying to
defend that which technically isn't defendable.  Like
jaywalking on an empty street(in cities where it'd be technically
improper).  Nobody will fuss, so don't loudly defend the
practice.  Just do it and wink silently.... :-)

IMO

Mike K.