Dan Gross

That one-word description fits me to a T, as you (and she) know...

Happy Birthday Nick!

Happy 10,000th, stevestojan-for-brains!

Okay, so if you're not sharing back, how is it file sharing? Isn't what you're doing just downloading then? I know when I tell my kids to share, that means they both have to give and take. Where would Kazaa and others be if everyone decided not to share? Don't people in the P2P community look upon people who behave that way as leeches? And why don't you allow him/yourself to share back?

There goes the Aussie slyly throwing british definitions at us yanks again: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=guy guy - Chiefly British. A person of odd or grotesque appearance or dress. Just kidding, D.

You of all people should know it's the Texas Democratic Women web site.

Yeah, I remember having the insure/ensure discussion a while ago. I'm on your side there (or should I say I'm on you're side their? ) I've also given up on the incorrect use of data (data is the plural form of datum, so it should be treated as plural....). Even some of the research scientists I work with are saying "the data is available..."

They mean the same thing, but to avoid confusion (some see the "in-" and think "un-") it's best to use flammable: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=flammable

Isn't it hypocritical to say that you are asking people to provide proof when you provide none of your own? Try reading Title 17, section 106 of the US Code, and the accompanying notes. Owners of copyrights of movies are granted the exclusive right to perform or display it publicly. By definition, for the sake of movies, performing means "to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible," displaying should be obvious. ( Section 101, definitions ). Look further at the definition of performing publicly, and it says: If you look at the accompanying notes, you will see that the law has been changed to eliminate the "for profit" provisions that originally existed, as the lines between "for profit" and "non profit" have been blurred. It also goes into much greater detail about public performance and display.... So then let's skip ahead to Chapter 5, Infringement and remedies. Under section 506: Let's argue that DVD's have a "retail value" of $20. That means if at least 25 people download a movie from your "share" in 180 day period, you are liable for criminal prosecution, whether you are doing it for $$$ or not. I'm too tired right now to say for certain, but I believe, the way they have "public performance" defined in the notes, that simply making the movie available for share means it is distributed to everyone using the sharing facility, if not the entire internet. By reading this you may say the person who downloads the movies is not breaking the law. Technically that would be correct, under copyright law, but other laws may come into play. That doesn't mean you have a legal copy of the movie though...and I believe the copy you download is subject to seizure.

You jerky jerks have hijacked another thread! Sorry to hear about the bikes...

So as long as you put...ummm...what's left of it when you're done with it back on the tray when you're done, you're fine.

Now his Uber-cats, on the other hand....

You CYA, while I CMA!

It's called CMA. Anybody trying to go after Kazaa for making said illegal files available gets the terms of usage in return. Kazaa would likely "ban" the user, which means the person would have to come up with another clever user name (Hax0r2), but it allows them to wipe their hands clean of any legal responsibility.

So that means it's illegal to tape "Strange Brew" if it comes on HBO....gotcha!

All right, guys, let's reduce the "spillover" from the thrown cup in the other thread.

Okay, so it's legal if it's Piels....?

Oh, sure, he can register for Takeo's board, but the minute I try to sign up they refuse to send me the all-important "click to finish registration" e-mail. ....and it's not just me....Rubeo and others have had the same problem.... This ignore feature is cool. I can try to guess what the idiot said by reading the oft-times witty responses, without having to read the blather that is being responded to....

Why is it illegal to throw a plastic cup but perfectly legal for the judge to throw the book at you? Are judges above the law?

Oh, so that's what they mean when they say "You are under artest!"

They tend to let you off easier if you look presentable.

I think the Cleveland case is not about "firing a coach mid-season" as much as "allowing a former college coach who still has connections that you plan to fire at the end of the season anyway to resign early to try for those jobs, while in doing that favor limiting the amount of 'dead money' that has to be paid to him." As far as our decision last year, I don't see how replacing the coach mid-season would have made a positive difference on this year, unless you think one of the assistants would have been a better coach than Mularkey? We would not have been able to pick up Mularkey (or any of the assistants he brought with him) before the end of last season....

Not if we repeal the law of gravity it wouldn't. I think we should. There are already too many laws that are trying to keep a man down!

No, the film companies did not lose money because a.) they already received it from HBO for broadcasting, b.) you weren't going to buy the DVD anyway....if you had, you likely would have before it was broadcast on HBO. There's a reason for the timing of broadcasts....maybe you haven't noticed, but it pretty much generally (with some exception) goes: 1.) Theatrical Release 2.) Video Release 3.) PPV Release 4.) Premium Cable Channel Broadcast 5.) Sponsored-channel (including not only the OTA networks, but cable channels that subsidize their purchase of said movies through commercials) broadcast. The timing of the shift from one to the next is based on their knowledge of how long they can wring the most money from the previous step in the process. The video release comes only after most people who will go see the movie have seen the movie. Broadcasts happen only after most people who will buy the video have bought the video. Etc.... Ugh....

Please spend a couple of days reading this: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/...betamaxcase.htm It's a lot of words, but I think you can get through it. It discusses the Betamax case, and how videotaping programs for later viewing is "fair use." If it wasn't there wouldn't be a record button on your VCR, and there wouldn't be inventions that make it easier for you to record shows off your TV.