Re: [dvd-discuss] When you though things couldn't get any weirder...

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 16 Jul 2003 at 18:47, Seth Johnson wrote:

Date sent:      	Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:47:33 -0400
From:           	Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org>
Organization:   	Real Measures
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] When you though things couldn't get any 
weirder...
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> Fortunately (not for me, because I forwarded that URL around), this is a
> hoax.  The two internal links are to pages on www.scoopthis.com, whose
> header reads, "Because if it's on the net, it must be true."
> 
> I gotta learn.  Too outrageous, how could I have let myself be fooled?

"Copyright for 95 yrs or life + 70, jail time for telling one how to read an 
ebook, millions of dollars defending DeCSS, the MPAA trying to get Jon declared 
a juvenile delinquent of dangerous tendencies, an RIAA lawyer that barely 
passed evidence giving testimony to the government...oh Toto...Toto...Auntie 
Em....", "Dorothy wake up...you've had a terrible dream..."

If it weren't too close to the truth it wouldn't have fooled you.

> 
> Auugh!
> 
> Seth
> 
> 
> Stephen L Johnson wrote:
> > 
> > A friend of mine forwarded me this link:
> > 
> > http://www.411mania.com/music/news/article.php?news_id=3586
> > 
> > Snippet:
> > -----
> > According to MTV.com, Metallica are suing independant Canadian rockers
> > Unfaith over what they call "unsanctioned usage of two chords
> > [Metallica] have been using since 1982 : E and F."
> > -----
> > 
> > According to an MTV.com article link in the article, it's a trademark
> > infringement case. Huh!?!? Since when does the PTO allow a trademark
> > consisting of a sequence of two cords?
> 
> -- 
> 
> DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!
> 
> New Yorkers for Fair Use
> http://www.nyfairuse.org
> 
> [CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html
> 
> I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
> this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
> attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
> usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
> exclusive rights.
>