dgerard at gmail.com
Wed May 9 12:11:10 UTC 2007
On 09/05/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at 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.
More information about the foundation-l