On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 10:57 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Craig White wrote:
>
> > Aside from the implications in general, how does this apply to Howell?
> >
> > Your subject clearly states that this is a wrinkle in the Howell case?
> >
> > I fail to see the relevance but you are the attorney here. Please make
> > your case. I don't recall ever seeing an attorney offering as
> > evidence,
> > laws that were never passed but you obviously have other notions.
>
>
> Yet another instance where something that is 'obvious' to you seems to
> be nonsense to others. At the same time, what is obscure to you is
> obvious to others:
>
> <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080113-eff-tries-to-quash-labels-making-available-claims.html
> >
> Note the link at the bottom of the page.
----
wow, and you accused me of ad hominem attacks...
Let me see if I understand...you originally linked a July 2007 article
by suggesting that this creates a new wrinkle in the Howell case.
You now link a new article that really has little to do with the
original link except at the end, mentions the same author's first
article from July which curiously enough, smacks of the same
sensationalism that you decried when Fisher wrote his article for the
Washington Post.
The simple fact remains, that which was already proven from their own
sworn testimony that the RIAA considers all digital copies taken from a
legally purchased CD and put onto the computers hard drive as 'a nice
way of saying, steals only one copy.'
Perhaps in your own opinion of the moment kind of way, want to use your
own words to state how/why the proposed legislation of July 2007,
represents a new wrinkle in the Howell case, I promise not to parse your
words...I just thought that you would have enough respect for us to draw
your own conclusions.
I couldn't have been more clear with a question though...
> I fail to see the relevance but you are the attorney here. Please make
> your case. I don't recall ever seeing an attorney offering as
> evidence, laws that were never passed but you obviously have other
> notions.
A proposed law that was never passed is irrelevant to Atlantic v.
Howell.
Argue away counselor...
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)