On 5/3/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It is nearly inevitable that this is going to be
a case where all
MPAA's horses won't be able to put humpty dumpty back together again,
and after it becomes definitively obvious that is the case of affairs,
and the number indeed has spread far, wide and into authoritative
information outlets, we can safely go with the de facto
non-enforcement of what rights (or not, as the case may in the de jure
sense have been) MPAA might have had to prevent disclosure.
Except the MPAA are going to have to think about the future. There are
other such numbers that they do not wish to become public. If they
think they can win such lawsuits sueing say the 10 highest profile
distrubuters would be a fairly logical activity.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Or, they might realize that such an action would just encourage people
to crack the rest of the keys, and make damn sure they get spread
quickly again. Now, of course, I'm not generally one to give the MPAA
much credit for such common sense, and treating them like a
potentially dangerous lunatic does make a bit of sense here. So, let's
see what everyone does. If they start suing Wired, or Digg, or anyone
else, we should probably err on the side of caution for a bit.
However, having a quick look, the NYT blog even has links to the
Youtube video of it, as well as to Digg, which at the time they wrote
it has roughly eleventy thousand mentions. So my read on it is, if the
NYT and all the rest aren't too worried, we don't have much to worry
about either. The number's out there, and there's not a snowball's
chance that any lawsuit or anything else can change that.
--
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.