[Foundation-l] 09-f9-...

[David Gerard]

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.

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6623331.stm


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.