|
|
Posted by Don M. on 09/20/05 15:52
"FatKat" wrote in message news:1127224407.515205.244520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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
=============
They've accused a person who was long dead, of copyright infringement. There were no
grounds for suing that person's estate.
The horror stories people read in the news about other common people being sued are
designed to scare them into not sharing. I really think "suing the blind" would convince
many sharers they are not safe from being sued. IMHO, of course.
> 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.
There's no such thing as a starving lawyer, is there, so I guess US$7500 sounds cheap to
some, but what do you consider "remarkably cheap"?
AFAIK, suing parents for copyright infringement doesn't necessarily prevent their kids
from using chatrooms; they can go in without any copyrighted material, can they not?
Otherwise, why not file preemptive lawsuits against parents of young kids?
> >
> <snip really old and tired law jokes>
>
Yet I never seem to get tired of them.
In any case, there may be new ones here: http://www.ahajokes.com/lawyer_jokes.html
Don
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|