[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:19:43 -0800
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On 19 Jan 2003 at 18:11, Ron Gustavson wrote:
From: "Ron Gustavson" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] various reactions to supreme court travesty
Date sent: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:11:57 -0500
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > <email@example.com> wrote:
> > The website has 50 now...of course nothing less than in perpetuity gratis is
> > not acceptable to JackBoots and company...
> Perhaps we should lobby our legislators for Valenti's desired
> "forever minus one day" and see how the USSC reacts.
One should not tempt fate...personally, as a former jury member and juror
foreperson, I hope that my time is not spent dealing with this lamentable law
the next time I am summoned because as the ultimate decider of fact, there are
far more important questions to decide involving judgment of the lives of
others. I find it difficult to hold copyright infringment as a criminal offense
greater than the strangulation followed by being thrown down a flight of
stairs of the last case I sat in judgement with others. Copyright offenses are
pale things that border on insignificance.
> In any event it would be preferable to the de facto "forever plus
> twenty years" that we now have.
Preferable....how if equal....one has hope the other does not...
> 7607 6FA2 6485 3707 42D1 99AD 7E20 52FD