🚀 go-pugleaf

I would love to know what the response would be if someone sent this message
and all its headers to Famous Players theatres and then the producer of that
movie.

I am sure that eventually they would send a warning letter to our lawless
one Pete Dolman, and then probably a warning letter to the ISP.

Eventually, a severe warning letter will  come to all ISPs for basically
selling pipelines to steal.

In a way, turning normally law abiding citizens into criminals.





"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
news:L1Tj9.402847$Ag2.17543491@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Hey, Clueless Wonder, I've never denied downloading and WATCHING the
> movie. I did. ME. YES, I DID IT. AND I'LL DO IT AGAIN!
>
> I DOWNLOADED AND WATCHED "ONE HOUR PHOTO". And I ate my own popcorn and
> curled up in my own comfy chair. And I enjoyed it immensely.
>
> Of course the fact it pisses you off simply adds to the pleasure the
> movie brought me. Now I have to go and watch the screener of "Reign of
> Fire". Hope that pisses you off some more, you pathetic loser.
> --
> Peter D
>
> �-�� tayl�rchuk ��|I wrote in message ...
> >There you go Doherty...he admits that he not just downloaded the
> Hollywood
> >movie, One hour photo before it was released to the public...but he
> also
> >WATCHED it.
> >
> >He did not pay the copyright holders for the privelage.
> >
> >He was also aware of the copyright notices shown on any video tape that
> one
> >would legally rent from a video store.
> >
> >So he continues to insist that there is no illegal act going on.
> >
> >He tries to talk about distribution.
> >
> >He took property owned by the producer of the movie...did not pay the
> >producers..and watched it.
> >
> >Pete Dolman..should not only feel ashamed of himself ... but he should
> at
> >least admit to us all what his actions really are.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
> >news:ijSj9.386109$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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>