On Jan 1, 2008, at 11:37 AM, der.hans wrote: > Am 01. Jan, 2008 schwätzte Chris Gehlker so: > >> I received this link from another list. It does clarify things. >> > > > > Bah, the site requires allowing cookies to get past the ad :(. It's doing that for me now as well. It wasn't this morning. > > > "Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the > compressed .MP3 > format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the > authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs." > > Does that mean sharing flac or wav would be OK? > > To me the sentence does make it seem like moving to "the compressed > .MP3" is what makes it "no longer the authorized copies distributed by > Plaintiffs", especially after several sentences making the case that > the > defendents are the ones who converted the songs to mp3. If being in a > compressed format is not part of the cause, then it doesn't belong in > the sentence. It especially doesn't belong in a legal, causality-based > document. > > What if the songs were merely linked into the shared folder? Methinks you are being a bit disingenuous. -- Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list! --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss