|
|
Posted by FatKat on 09/20/05 13:53
Don M. wrote:
> "FatKat" wrote in message news:1127192910.939296.26400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Don M. wrote:
> > > "FatKat" wrote in message
> news:1127158489.599470.285420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Technomage Hawke wrote:
> > > > > I wonder, if I get sued by paramount pictures, can I counter sue based on
> > > > > malicious prosecution and filing a frivolous lawsuit?
> > > > >
> > > > Why should this lawsuit be considered less frivolous than any of the
> > > > others filed by industry groups? That said, it's unlikely they'd
> > > > seriously pursue the case once they were sure you really were blind.
> > > >
> > > You seem to imply that lawyers have a heart and that someone's disability could keep
> them
> > > away from their loot... When did hell freeze over and why wasn't I notified?
> > >
> > No, I said that nobody wants to be seen in the media beating up on the
> > disabled.
> ==========
>
> They've sued the young, the old and the dead so far. What better example to set than "not
> even the blind is exempt if you engage in illegal downloading [sic]"? They would love to
> indirectly intimidate as many people as possible.
The young and the dead aren't much of a problem; with the dead, you're
suing an estate - it really happens all the time. As for kids, that's
also a red herring - everybody knows that the parents are going to pay.
When you think of those stories of young children in on-line
chatrooms, an RIAA lawsuit is remarkably cheap.
>
>
> > On the subject of lawyers and hearts, if you want to make
> > lawyers out to be the bad guys, there's not really much anybody can do
> > about that.
> >
> -----
>
> Lawyers do fine without any help from me, thank you.
>
<snip really old and tired law jokes>
> Don
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|