🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote on 24 Sep 2002

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

But more to the point Peter, where did you 'find' this movie. How tough is 
it to find movies? I'm very curious. 


-- 
Cliff