On 03/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@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.
I note we haven't even had a takedown notice yet.
Note also that Wikipedia is a really bad site to sue when the article is academically entirely defensible. Not even the Scientologists, famed for their chutzpah, have tried. We would have *incredible* numbers of friends.
I really doubt we're in danger, and if they were to try they'd be utterly, utterly fucked. The skies would turn black with fully armed combat ninja pro bono First Amendment lawyers.
- d.