Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Please explain how that is changing the subject.
You both were under the assumption that I responded to a post that I did not respond to. You both threw incorrect accusations out there.
You both had no clue. He most likely was referring to Adam_Poe's post because Adam_Poe said this:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I met with copyright attorney, L. Curry, LL.M. today, and she corroborated that one does not necessarily need to directly financially benefit from infringing a work to be vicariously liable for copyright infringement.
VVD responded with something like"
"If only debates were decided solely on an adverb rather than facts."
Hence, my response to his post requesting a clarification. Whether or not it was a smart ass comment about Adam_Poe trying to pass off the experts opinion as an end all because he/she said "not necessarily" was directly known since he didn't quote his intended recipient. Since he didn't quote, I didn't want to assume/jump the gun for whom he was referring...there was more than one argument going on. One can assume that he was referring to Adm_Poe. He edited his posted, so apparently, he decided against it. Reason: unknown.
Do you both understand now?