🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov16.232911.6987@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:

>   My point is that a.b.p.e isn't harmful to pornography publishers. That
>is my opinion, and I will defend it. I would argue it to the publishers if
>they cared.

Big news for you, dude.  They don't.

>I suggest that if you aren't harming anyone, then what you
>are doing is OK. Do you want to argue with that statement?

Fine by me.  Try telling it to the judge.

>>They do care.  They sued Event Horizons, a dirty-GIF BBS, and won big time.
>
>   You willfully misread this event. Unless I am very wrong, EH was claiming
>ownership of the images, and threatening other BBS's. It makes perfect sence
>to me that Playboy would sue.

Gosh.  I thought that that didn't hurt pornography publishers.  Why on
earth would they sue?

>>They do think it does them harm and it is not up to us to decide whether
>>it causes them harm.
>
>  I deny this (the first sentance). I believe they do not think usenet is
>causing them harm, or they would have taken action before.

There's such a thing as waiting to enact a suit until a legal climate
favors a particular injunction, you know.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /