Re: mplayer, the time has come
On Friday 25 February 2005 02:10 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I do. That barely scratched their "get-out-of-court-free" cash fund,
> which they stoked up precisely so they can effectively ignore such
> judgements; it numbers in the tens of billions in liquid capital. It
> certainly didn't hurt their position any.
I don't like Microsoft any more than you do, but this just pointless MS
bashing. I assure you that MS investors (I live in Seattle... practically
every person I meet is a freakin' MS investor) cared a great deal about that
litigation and would rather it not happend.
> RIAA, for one. It's often used as a form of lawyer terrorism; they
> don't want money, they want to scare people.
Most importantly, this is not a patent case. But yes, RIAA is engaged in a
rather effective litigation strategy that raises the cost of downloading
music through fear of liability. Its how every other apsect of the civil law
works, but the internet threw an interesting wrench in the works. While I
happen to disagree to the RIAAs refusal to embrace alternative distribution
models, I cannot fault them for their approach in defending their rights as
secured by law.
> We hate reading it, too.
I believe this comment has already been properly responded to in an previous
post by Mr. Maynard.
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law
GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association
Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org]
c: 206.498.8207 e: skellogg@u.washington.edu
So, let go
...Jump in
...Oh well, what you waiting for?
...it's all right
...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Reply to: