🚀 go-pugleaf

There you go Doherty...he admits that he not just downloaded the Hollywood
movie, One hour photo before it was released to the public...but he also
WATCHED it.

He did not pay the copyright holders for the privelage.

He was also aware of the copyright notices shown on any video tape that one
would legally rent from a video store.

So he continues to insist that there is no illegal act going on.

He tries to talk about distribution.

He took property owned by the producer of the movie...did not pay the
producers..and watched it.

Pete Dolman..should not only feel ashamed of himself ... but he should at
least admit to us all what his actions really are.




"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
news:ijSj9.386109$v53.18123215@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> NEWS wrote in message <3d8fcfa8$1@news.eol.ca>...
> <big snip>
> >Now I may have missed something posted earlier or since.  I see this
> was
> >cross posted by Peter D to Can. Legal, thus assuming he was looking for
> some
> >form of confirmation of his position.  It would appear that he has not
> >received that confirmation.  What he intends to do with it is his
> decision.
> >My opinions are just that, take them or leave them. :-)
>
> Just to clarify, the cross posting to can.legal was done by our resident
> netloon and troll, Don Bayomi (taylorchuk) who is infamous for making
> wild claims and allegations of "obvious criminal behaviour" as part of
> his reason for living in Usenet to avoid the real world. He also enjoys
> cross-posting to other groups as he trolls for new bites. Amazingly,
> this time he actually chose an on-topic group, so there's still hope for
> him.
>
> I mentioned that I had downloaded and watched "One Hour Photo" about
> three months ago. At that time it wasn't in the theatres. No idea why it
> took so long to show here. Regardless, even if it was showing, it would
> still not be "criminal behaviour" to view it. That led to him spewing
> his usual crap. Of course, I asked him, as I usually do, to supply
> something to support his claim. Devoid of facts or rational arguments he
> did his usual "tell a lie long enough and the people will believe it"
> dog and pony show.
>
> To date, no-one has shown me anything in Canadian law that makes it
> "criminal behaviour" to do what I did. Not copy and distribute it, just
> view it. And I'm still waiting for the fool and his wannabe to show me
> it is. Until then, I'll continue on with a perfectly legal activity
> without regard to the wishes of "Hollywood" (his rather bent claim to
> authority).
> HTH
> --
> Peter D
>
>