![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by stjames on February 27, 2003, at 15:41:10
> Clearly this is your issue. It is not mine. It is not Phil's. It isn't Jumpy's. And just as I don't expect you to know the definition of omphaloskepsis or zarf, you shouldn't expect me to know the finer points of digital copyright infringement.
That is why I posted links to http://www.dmca.org and http//:www.ricca.org which it seemed no one read (hince the comment "no one reads these days")
Posted by gabbix2 on February 27, 2003, at 17:07:19
In reply to Re: your tone, posted by stjames on February 27, 2003, at 15:41:10
That would be hence not hince.
Usually I couldn't care less how someone spells, but as the recurring theme in this thread has been the baseless generalization that we don't read anymore, it just seemed fitting.
Posted by stjames on February 27, 2003, at 17:13:37
In reply to Re: your tone, posted by gabbix2 on February 27, 2003, at 17:07:19
> That would be hence not hince.
> Usually I couldn't care less how someone spells, but as the recurring theme in this thread has been the baseless generalization that we don't read anymore, it just seemed fitting.I was not being general, I ment people complain
they do not understand, despite having been supplied links, which they do not read.
Posted by gabbix2 on February 27, 2003, at 18:29:23
In reply to Re: your tone, posted by stjames on February 27, 2003, at 17:13:37
I specifically came back to say I'm sorry.
That remark was unnecessary, unproductive, irrelevant and bitchy. I posted a few days earlier that I've been bitchy lately, I guess it continues.
Posted by Gracie2 on February 27, 2003, at 19:33:33
In reply to Re: your tone, posted by gabbix2 on February 27, 2003, at 18:29:23
Posted by Phil on February 28, 2003, at 8:38:38
In reply to Re: your tone, posted by gabbix2 on February 27, 2003, at 17:07:19
Gabbix2,
James has a brain disorder of some sort that doesn't allow him to spell very good. What he knows, however, is important to the board and he's seldom wrong, I don't mean that negatively, he's a smart guy....except in this particular instance.
James,I could explain that I posted from work yesterday when I had little time..I didn't go to your links.
I can more than support what I said but for the sake of civility, my lips are sealed. : )Take it easy and remember, treat me with the same respect with which I have 'always' treated you.
Thanks,
Phil
Posted by gabbix2 on February 28, 2003, at 10:22:39
In reply to Re: your tone///st james » gabbix2, posted by Phil on February 28, 2003, at 8:38:38
Posted by lostsailor on February 28, 2003, at 10:23:29
In reply to Re: your tone///st james » gabbix2, posted by Phil on February 28, 2003, at 8:38:38
Posted by stjames on February 28, 2003, at 11:48:34
In reply to Re: your tone, posted by gabbix2 on February 27, 2003, at 17:07:19
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954658.html
Music body presses anti-piracy case
By Declan McCullagh
August 21, 2002, 6:54 AM PTASPEN, Colo.--In what may become a new legal front in its war against
online copying, the Recording Industry Association of America has
asked a federal court for help in tracing an alleged peer-to-peer
pirate.On Tuesday, the RIAA asked a federal judge in Washington, D.C., for an
order compelling Verizon Communications to reveal the name of a
customer accused of illegally trading hundreds of songs. Citing
privacy concerns and potential legal liability, Verizon has refused to
comply with a subpoena the RIAA sent last month."It's not that they don't want to turn over the name," said Mitch
Glazier, an RIAA senior vice president. "It's that they don't want to
be liable for turning over a subscriber's name."Until now, the entertainment industry has relied on civil lawsuits
aimed at corporations, not individuals, to limit widespread copyright
infringement on peer-to-peer networks. Now, however, the RIAA is
revising its strategy and appears ready to sue individuals swapping
songs over the Internet.At issue in the RIAA's request is an obscure part of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that permits a copyright owner to send
a subpoena ordering a "service provider" to turn over information
about a subscriber. It is not necessary to file a lawsuit to take
advantage of the DMCA's expedited subpoena process.[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
CNET Radio 9:40 am ET weekdays: http://cnet.com/broadband/0-7227152.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Phil on February 28, 2003, at 15:47:35
In reply to Wow, you guys, relax! (nm), posted by Gracie2 on February 27, 2003, at 19:33:33
The comments made to me weren't civil. All I said was treat me the way I treat you.
I don't know if you read the whole thread. Anyway, it's behind us.Phil
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.