On 09/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/9/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that the number itself is a big part of the issue here (as evidenced by this conversation, after all?) So, why should we -not- print it? It's evident AACS doesn't intend to cause legal trouble, they'd make themselves a laughingstock.
You do realise the BBC broadcast the number on News 24, and I think on BBC America ...
And, of course, it's still on the Current TV site. I wonder if Al Gore is quaking in fear.
We have no frigging idea which way the MPAA is going to jump. While personaly I might find a situation where they end up owning digg.com extreamly funny I don't think that would make them a laughing stock.
I refer the honorable gentleman once more to the case where Felten said "come on, let's take it to court" and the RIAA broke the sound barrier backing off.
- d.