On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 07:12 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Craig White wrote:
> > What I would argue with is that you have re-phrased, recharacterized
> > the
> > authors statement which I have quoted to you twice and it's obvious
> > that
> > continually re-quoting his statement will not get it through your head
> > but specifically...NO WHERE DID THE ARTICLE EVER STATE (these are your
> > words from above) "in the teeth of the evidence, that the RIAA was
> > suing
> > Howell for merely ripping files regardless of whether he shared them
> > or
> > not."
> >
> > I suppose it's necessary for you to twist the authors words in order
> > to
> > prove what he didn't ever say.
>
> I think I'll simply reference this:
> <http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839897-7.html>
----
Apparently all defendant Thomas will need to have her conviction tossed
on appeal
This is absolutely hysterical...I knew it seemed really odd that this
guy Sherman from the RIAA was trying to rehabilitate their own (actually
Sony's) lawyer...
See this link...
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/riaas-cary-sher.html
Craig
---------------------------------------------------
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
(text/plain)