🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxvKG8.73s@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.232911.6987@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>>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.
>
   Good, so you carry a.b.p.e? I'm not asking any judge to carry the group.

>> [about Event Horizons]  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?
>
   Don't be snide. Claiming ownership is clearly different from freely
distributing. I claim that free distribution doesn't harm the publishers, but
transfer of ownership would.

>>>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.

   Then why haven't they pursued a case against other pay BBS's? We need more
than just the suggestion that they object to stand against the complete
failure of the publishers to pursue this. It may change in the future, of
course.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.