$1,500,000 Fine For Sharing 10 Movies On BitTorrent 339
another random user writes with news that a Virginia man, Kywan Fisher, has been ordered to pay $1,500,000 to porn-maker Flava Works for sharing ten of the company's films over BitTorrent. "The huge total was reached through penalties of $150,000 per movie, the maximum possible statutory damages under U.S. copyright law." The man did not make any defense in federal court to Flava Works' copyright infringement claims, so the judge handed down a default judgement.
"In 2011 Fisher and several other defendants were sued by adult entertainment company Flava Works. The case in question differs from the so-called 'John Doe' lawsuits as the copyright holder had detailed information on the defendants who had paid accounts on the company’s movie portal. For Fisher the trouble started when instead of just viewing the films for personal entertainment, he allegedly went on to share copies on BitTorrent. These illicit copies were traced directly back to his account through a code embedded in the videos. ... The verdict will be welcomed by Flava and the many other copyright holders involved in BitTorrent lawsuits in the United States. DieTrollDie, a close follower and critic of these cases, points out that it will be widely cited in settlement letters to other defendants, but that the case itself is notably different. 'This was not the normal Copyright Troll case – there was some actual evidence beyond a public IP address. Not a smoking gun by far, but certainly enough to show a preponderance of evidence,' DTD writes.
$1,500,000 for porn (Score:5, Funny)
That REALLY sucks...
Re:$1,500,000 for porn (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It blows too man.....
Re:$1,500,000 for porn (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it was kind of like that.
Yeah, because that makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
How is it more expensive?
It is pretty cheap to make and sold for low low prices. Availability seems to be no issue either, every porn store has it and you can order it online or view lots of it for free legally from streaming sites.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Easy to say when you don't have to worry about looking like an ass.
Get an account.
Re:Yeah, because that makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
A lesson to you all... (Score:5, Interesting)
Play the video on the screen and record it with your camcorder before you share it. The analog-HOLE will save you from detection.... Unless they do the punched hole technique that Hollywood does on some frames in a movie.... Then you are hosed....
Re:A lesson to you all... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the real lesson is DONT PAY FOR PORN!
Re:A lesson to you all... (Score:5, Insightful)
No good deed goes unpunished. Someone actually paid for some content, and this lawsuit is his reward. We ought to make this into a lesson for the copyright holders. Never buy content. Let them go out of business. They deserve to, for suing their own customers. But, there is another way.
No one should ever give up their privacy to pay for a movie, whether or not it's porn. If Mr. Fisher had used a prepaid credit card with no or fake info, he would be safe from this nonsense. What should he do now? Maybe too late for this one, but he could "accidentally" lose his credit card, then claim thieves used it to buy the porn.
Such privacy preserving payment methods aren't as convenient as they could be, but they do exist. From what I've read, you can buy a prepaid credit card with cash. You may have to give a name and address, because many merchants will use that information to verify that the card hasn't been stolen. But, the personal information does not have to be real. It only has to match with the name and address you use with the online merchant. Privacy advocates particularly recommend this Simon Card [simon.com]. Of course to preserve your privacy you shouldn't buy the prepaid card online, have to go to a store where you can buy it with cash.
Re:A lesson to you all... (Score:5, Insightful)
He bought something and then gave it away for free without permission.
You are what is wrong with our World, sir.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. If I buy a book or a DVD or a file, I expect I can damn well can give it away if I want to. Some people give gifts for birthdays or Christmas. (Maybe the GP doesn't believe in Christmas.) Or, I can sell or trade it to a used book store. Not my fault if it ends up being uploaded. Doesn't Mr. Fisher get any rights from the First-sale doctrine, regardless of what the seller may try to claim about content being licensed, not sold?
Mr. Fisher has many more defenses. What if a friend or a hacker u
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Any citation for that?
Simple watermarking is not even recompression proof. So any that would survive that kind of change would be neat to read about.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Simple watermarking is not even recompression proof. So any that would survive that kind of change would be neat to read about.
There are companies (e.g. Civolution) that claim to have sophisticated watermarking that can survive various recording/rerecording techniques. Of course you won't find much in the way of real information on their techniques as the companies consider the algorithms and processes to be proprietary. I used to work for a set-top box company doing system architecture and implementation and had the task of evaluating several companies offerings. Even as the engineer doing the evaluation work, I could not get answ
Evidence. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
He sat through every filthy, disgusting minute of it...twice.
That is just mental (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as someone who writes and self publishes books for a living (see sig), this is an insane judgement. $150,000 per movie? Ten movies?
I don't know how this could possibly be considered fair. Even if the guy 100% did everything that he is accused of, what's the real cost of his actions? If each film is, say, $10, then this means he cost the porno company 15,000 sales, per movie.
The problem is it just doesn't add up. Something free isn't the same value as something paid. I've given away approximately 20,000 books on Amazon, but I've sold about 1,000. I didn't lose 19,000 sales.
Every retailer knows if you give away free samples or even free products you're encouraging people to come back. To buy your new offerings. People are creatures of habit and once we like something we want more of it. This massive giveaway probably did wonders for their signup rates.
But I understand that putting *every* piece of your product online is bad, and making them permanently and easily available is damaging to sales especially in the short term.
But that much damage? 1.5 million bucks total? This is ludicrous. It's insane. There are punishments for real, genuine crimes with real, lasting harm to a person that are less than that. How is he supposed to pay?
So as a media producer, I think that bankrupting someone for sharing ten films online is completely immoral. It's just wrong.
Re:That is just mental (Score:4, Insightful)
It might have helped had he bothered to defend himself, since he didn't the judge defaulted to the maximum penalty. This does seem to teach others not to purchase from this company but to get it elsewhere instead.
Re:That is just mental (Score:5, Insightful)
It might have helped had he bothered to defend himself, since he didn't the judge defaulted to the maximum penalty.
Why should the judge conclude he deserves the maximum penalty, he only heard one side.
Judges are suppsed to, you know, judge, not just assume the worst (or the best).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Every retailer knows if you give away free samples or even free products you're encouraging people to come back. To buy your new offerings. People are creatures of habit and once we like something we want more of it. This massive giveaway probably did wonders for their signup rates.
the guy shared movies from the same producer; how are there new offerings? :) unless they offer more than 10 movies.
Re: (Score:3)
Statutory damages are there when one copyrighted work is copied without permission, and the number of copies is either unknown or very high. They also work for free software authors, where the sale value is zero so there are no monetary damages. But a big company using the software without following the license can still be liable for big damages.
However, the statutory maximum damages are rarely imposed. The only reason it happened here is because the defendant didn't show in court. He screwed himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he figures on going on a revenge shooting rampage and dying in a hail of bullets from the cops, ( since he recieved the financial death penalty and may not fancy being destitute for the rest of his life ).
Re:That is just mental (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember that these fines are statutory, and were originally designed for the counterfeiter who intended to generate illicit profit by unlawfully reproducing work. In order to set a standard which would deter such infringement, a large value was set. If you're making several thousand copies of phonorecords in your industrial park building, it's easy to see that you could be tuning a solid 6 figure (or higher) profit on the black market. If they catch you with 10,000 copies of movies or records, you might be looking at $100,000 in merchandise, $300,000 with triple damages. If you're burning through a couple million dollars in sales a year, that's not a big deal. You may have sold 300-500,000 copies, but they can only charge what they can prove - your 10,000 pieces. However, if we presume your total production is larger than your inventory, there must be a way to punish you without having to track down every single disc you sold. Hence the efficiency of $150k per recording.
Is it insane in this case? Yes, it is. But it's the law, and the people who control the law (the ones who's deep pockets depend on the status quo) like it this way.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it insane in this case? Yes, it is. But it's the law
No it's not. The constitution is the law, and the law clearly states that excessive fines shall not be imposed. Of course, the thugs in charge of enforcing and interpreting the law don't see it that way. But that doesn't change what the law actually is. It only means that our government operates extra-legally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That must be some pretty cheap internet connection you're using to tell us that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a deterrent. It's not supposed to be fair recompense for harm to the company. It's like those $1,000 fine for littering signs. Nearly no one ever gets ticketed for littering, so the fine has to be pretty high for anybody to care. If you had a small chance of getting hit with that fine, ins
Re: (Score:3)
It's a deterrent. It's not supposed to be fair recompense for harm to the company. It's like those $1,000 fine for littering signs. Nearly no one ever gets ticketed for littering, so the fine has to be pretty high for anybody to care. If you had a small chance of getting hit with that fine, instead of zero, which it usually is, you'd think twice about throwing garbage on the ground. Same deal here. He's not supposed to pay. He's supposed to not do this.
I think it's having the opposite effect: complete and total loss of respect for copyright law. Well, at least for people who respected it to begin with.
Why is porn protected in the first place? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why is porn protected in the first place? (Score:4, Insightful)
What useful arts and sciences does it promote?
The art of getting your rocks off. Judging by the prevalence of porn, lots of people find it useful.
He *paid* for porn, he deserves to pay more (Score:4, Interesting)
"[porn distributor] had detailed information on the defendants who had paid accounts on the company’s movie portal"
Look, anybody who voluntarily surrenders *their own credit card details with their real name on it* to an internet porn distributor just asks for trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
He must be able to afford it if he had the time to watch and run out of free porn. I don't know, maybe the paid stuff has a better sound track.
So... instead of the standard "bow-wiki-wiki-wow-wow," you get John Williams?
Yea, I can see how someone might be willing to pay for that...
Spin (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The videos were stamped with his account ID from the flava website where he initially downloaded the videos from.
OK, it's not proof that he was the one that uploaded but it certainly stacks the evidence against him that he was involved in the process some how, even if it was unwillingly.
Not turning up just gave Flava an easy home run, but it probably didn't change the result, although it might of affected the payout.
who's responsible of the data (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He might have tried that line had he bothered to show up to defend himself.
That's 10x the budget of all of those "films" (Score:3)
Shouldn't the award AT LEAST be limited to the highest conceivable profit those movies could have *possibly* made had they not sold a single one? There is NO WAY they would have made even a fraction of that had this guy COMPLETELY killed their business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All an absurd fine does is encourage disrespect for the law as it appears obviously unjust to most observers and is something that can never be recovered. The fine can never be paid because of it's cruel and unusual nature when applied to an individual. It's simply too large to be paid and even too large to be understood. Most people (including the judge) can't even relate to that number. So it has no real value.
It comes off like a strange fiction rather than a real punishment.
Do People really pay for Porn? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
People pay for the higher quality stuff. Not higher quality as in HD resolution but higher quality as in more attractive stars doing hotter acts. If you've only seen free porn, you haven't seen the good stuff yet.
And then... (Score:3)
He declares bankruptcy, and all his debts get wiped away. This could actually help his finances more than hurt them if he is like the typical American and has more debts than assets.
Re: (Score:3)
Morbo says: BANKRUPTCY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
I don't think this kind of debt can be discharged.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think bankruptcy fixes having been sued, or fines.
Sued a Paying Customer For $1.5M? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what Flava Works is saying here is that Kywan Fisher would have been better off had he never paid for his Flava Works pornography in the first place. After all, if he hadn't done the right thing and supported the studio, they never would have had his credit card details to begin with, unless his credit card info was stolen...
To those of you who think purchasing Flava Works's "works" is a good idea, let this be a less to you and torrent their content. What if your computer get stolen and the thief takes your porn collection and posts it to bittorrent sites? What if you get a virus and your porn files leak? What if you share a Flava Works file accidentally? I realize that that's a little hard to do with bittorrent, but you get the idea.
Re: (Score:3)
What they're saying is he would have been better off if he hadn't have shared them. Is that such a hard concept for you or are you just another Slashtard trying to twist logic to come up with a shallow justification for stealing other people's content?
I believe OP's point was that had Mr. Fisher just pirated the films to begin with, instead of purchasing them legally, his metadata never would have been stamped on the content, and thus he could have shared to his heart's content, and most likely would have gotten away scott-free. Also, pretty sure that point is so glaringly obvious that the only way to not get it would be through intent.
So please, by all means, continue to froth at the mouth spouting ill-conceived nonsense, which stems from your comple
You can't share files "on BitTorrent" (Score:2)
Nobody would say "he shared data on http", so please stop confusing the BT protocol with BT trackers.
Re:embedded code? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, we just watch them for the hidden codes, it's what turns us on.
Re: (Score:3)
Oblig ref: http://xkcd.com/981/ [xkcd.com]
Re:embedded code? (Score:5, Interesting)
They probably did a steganography on some key frames in the movie.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, I'm surprised it's not used more.
I heard at one point the RIAA wanted to do the same with music files legally downloaded; put some watermark that no one would notice in the audio portion of the file.
Re:embedded code? (Score:5, Interesting)
Several years ago, we had an incident where a high-profile music score was released earlier than intended (a winner of a talent show of some sort IIRC), sold a handful of copies before realising the mistake, and then removing the track again. It popped up on piratebay shortly after, and thanks to watermarking, we were easily able to locate the exact individual who shared the track.
Turned out the marketing guys didn't wanna follow up on the case, apparently because they were afraid to lose reputation with the legit customers.
To this day, I still have this weird "What is power if you don't use it!" feeling when thinking of the case, and I'm regularly annoyed by uneducated masses who essentially doesn't believe such technology exists and can practically be applied.
Posting anonymously for probably obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, smart marketing guys. That's not something you see every day.
Re: (Score:3)
You had no 'power'. You would have to prove the watermarked file was willfully provided by the owner, and a watermarked file fished out of the sea of the internet is not going to cut it.
Apparently it is, as the main article proves.
Re:embedded code? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is circumventable... Just like DRM. The difference is that that it does not interfere with the legal use cases of a normal user, while DRM does.
Re:WTF... (Score:5, Insightful)
I I use Bittorent almost exclusivly for down/uploading Linux iso's so I think I'm pretty safe.
Re:WTF... (Score:5, Funny)
i blame tcp/ip. hacker protocol.
Re:WTF... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is not Bittorrent. The problem is what you use Bittorent for.
I I use Bittorent almost exclusivly for down/uploading Linux iso's so I think I'm pretty safe.
No, for the particular use case this guy (and the GP) are talking about, Bittorrent is, in fact, a dumb solution. The downloading isn't the problem, the sharing back of data you didn't originate is.
And more generically, you're wrong anyway. If someone rooted one of the seeds of your Linux ISO and stuck a bunch of child porn in it, you're guilty of both downloading and distributing child pornography at that point. It doesn't matter what you say you were doing, or that you didn't produce the ISO. And you can't really detect there's a problem until you've already downloaded the whole ISO so you can hash the file. Now, maybe you get your .torrent files from somewhere secure, but people get onto distro servers with some regularity.
So, the GP is absolutely right -- using Bittorrent to download and re-seed anything you didn't explicitly produce yourself is, in fact, unsafe, and doing so with content you know is illegal is just plain stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting notions but you assume that the lawmakers actually care about common sense.
They don't. They care about keeping their palms greased.
Re:WTF... (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting notions but you assume that the lawmakers actually care about common sense.
They don't. They care about keeping their palms greased.
WRONG metaphor to use with this story, now it will take a few strong drinks to get that mental image out of my head...
Re:WTF... (Score:4)
If you are going to sign in to something in a way that can identify you, and then share possibly watermarked files, it doesn't matter what you use to share the files. The files can be traced back to you. Of course you could say you were hacked if the files were not shared from an IP associated with you. I'd say the two - your ip, and the watermark are enough to say it was probably you. Though if you have others in your family, it could have been them. For instance what could they do to two roommates that share a computer? Each could say it was the other one who shared the file.
Re:WTF... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing stupid here is your entire argument. If the distro box got rooted, they could start seeding child porn ANYWAY. They don't need torrents to do it either, they could just start up Apache serve it up on port 80 over HTTP.
This is just thinly veiled FUD to try to stop people from downloading and hosting files from the internet. Well, fuck that. That is the whole POINT of the internet, it is how webservers work, it is how mail servers work, it is how chat servers work (streams instead of files though), and people caving to fear that assholes like you spread only hurts it. OH NO! SOMEONE MIGHT ROOT MY BOX AND START HOSTING ILLEGAL MATERIAL!
Get. The. Fuck. Off. The. Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing stupid here is your entire argument. If the distro box got rooted, they could start seeding child porn ANYWAY. They don't need torrents to do it either, they could just start up Apache serve it up on port 80 over HTTP.
Is this a reading comprehension problem, or a knee-jerk response to a "zomg, someone saying something bad about something I use" nerve?
Because, while you're quite correct that they could be serving child porn via any mechanism they wanted on that rooted server, this isn't about the bad guy, this is about the GP's assertion that he's safe using BitTorrent because he only downloads Linux distributions. And, for the same reason you don't see lawsuits about people downloading pirated porn movies via Usenet (bec
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone rooted one of the seeds of your Linux ISO and stuck a bunch of child porn in it, you're guilty of both downloading and distributing child pornography at that point.
No, you're not.
With very few exceptions all criminal statutes have intent as a key element of the crime. If there was no intent, there was no crime. In many cases mere knowledge is enough to satisfy the intent requirement, and in some it can be argued that it's sufficient that you should have known. But in the case of downloading Linux ISOs, barring some additional information you had, there's no reason you should have known it contained kiddie porn, and therefore you haven't committed a crime. That's
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, criminal copyright infringement is that way. Civil infringement is a strict liability tort. That means you're on the hook even if you took reasonable steps not to infringe and did not ever intend to infringe.
So you could still be on the hook for the infringement of copyright if a copyright owner took you to civil court. Going to federal PMITA prison would require mens rea.
Re:WTF... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:WTF... (Score:5, Informative)
Not true. It's rare for child pornography statutes to have strict liability.
For example, New York State's is penal code article 263. Possession: "A person is guilty of possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child when, knowing the character and content thereof, he knowingly has in his possession or control, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, any obscene performance which includes sexual conduct by a child less than sixteen years of age."
The federal statue is what you're most likely to get prosecuted under if they can demonstrate that the material was transmitted over the Internet (and if they don't like you). This [missingkids.com] is a decent summary, but 18 USC 2252 [cornell.edu] is probably the most illustrative. Note that every statement in subsection (a) indicates "knowingly".
Re: (Score:3)
You are wrong on this point, you do not have to download the whole ISO to verify it. Bittorrent combines all the files to be transfered into one big data chunk and then splits up the chunk into pieces which are individually hashed. The resulting .torrent file ends up recording all the hashes from the individual pieces plus a "master" hash which is the hash of all the individual hashes.
Actually, that's explicitly why I said they needed to compromise the source of the torrent, not one of the seeders. I'm quite aware how bittorrent works.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is abuse of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem is the law itself and the people who support the people who write them
Re: (Score:2)
The minute we can choose between someone besides tweedle dee and tweedle dum, I'll blame the voters.
Until then, I'm not going to pin on them the natural results of a rigged system.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the problem in this case is that getting sued and not showing up for the case is really, really dumb.
Re:WTF... (Score:5, Interesting)
No you aren't. You only need to provide an offer, good for 3 years, to provide the source code for a nominal fee. If you are distributing the source code unmodified, then you can provide a copy of the offer that you received from upstream[1]. Any Linux ISO that you download will also contain this offer, so by passing it on unmodified you are not violating the GPL.
[1] This actually provides a fairly simple loophole if you're willing to wait three years: take some GPL code, modify it, and give it to a third party. They then sit on it for three years and then sell it as a binary-only product. They pass on your (now expired) offer, and no one has the right to demand the source code from you.
Re: (Score:3)
[1] This actually provides a fairly simple loophole if you're willing to wait three years: take some GPL code, modify it, and give it to a third party. They then sit on it for three years and then sell it as a binary-only product. They pass on your (now expired) offer, and no one has the right to demand the source code from you.
They can't. If they can't fulfill the requirements of the GPL (offer to provide source for 3 years), then they can't legally distribute the code.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the point he was making is that the 3rd party is not required to distribute the source code if it is unchanged, they only need to "forward on" the offer from where they got it. Since where the 3rd party had originally gotten it from is now beyond the 3 year limit, they don't need to provide it either anymore.
IANAL. I'm not saying it is true, or that is how it works. Just clarifying how TheRaven64's claim could possibly work, if all the things he assumes are true are indeed actually true.
Re: (Score:3)
The suit was in Illinois and the guy was in Virginia. So you could quite literally be sued anywhere and have to haul your butt across 5 state lines and hire an out of state lawyer with proper standing in whatever jurisdiction you happen to get served for.
That's even assuming that you properly get served to begin with.
I don't think anyone ever established this guy was properly served. He might have found about this the same way that the rest of us did. He might not even know about it still.
Re:That'll teach him.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or to download them illegally to begin with, instead of actually paying for watermarked movies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You're justifying theft with envy.
Re:Dunno guys, this is embarassing on a new level (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I get the joke you're making.
But it wouldn't matter if he had used proxies etc. It wasn't his IP address that got him. It was the fact the video shared had his personal imprint on the file. Flava didn't ever need to see/detect _him_ uploading the video. The existence of the video on the network is enough to press charges.
His best defence at this time would be to say his machine has been hacked by an unknown party who then went on the release the video via torrent. Which almost certanly will become a defence
Re: (Score:2)
Or the imprint was forged, or at least able to be. We don't know how the files were imprinted as no defence was made, he didn't try to refute the evidence. All we know is that the prosecution told the court: “Plaintiff has proprietary software that assigns a unique encrypted code to each member of Plaintiff’s paid websites. In this case, every time the Defendant downloaded a copy of a copyrighted video from Plaintiff’s website, it inserts an encrypted code that is only assigned to Defendan
Re: (Score:2)
In a civil suit isn't the burden of proof only 51%?
Re: (Score:3)
But his crime was not watching porn. His crime was sharing it illegally. So his addiction would have to be not feeling guilty about being a bittorrent porn leach.
Re:Live by the porn... (Score:4, Funny)
We mainly just put them in jail and punish them for the addiction.
Because unlike all those commie socialist countries in Europe, that actually works. (Or so my Republican candidate for senate tells me).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is caught driving drunk, now they get fined/jail time. If that person kills someone while driving under the influence, now they're in for a lot of jail time.
Unless, of course, they happen to be a US Senator.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the money so much as deterring others. Seeing someone get slapped with a charge they have no way of paying off will probably scare a few people straight.
Re:How is he going to pay that? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not about the money so much as deterring others. Seeing someone get slapped with a charge they have no way of paying off will probably scare a few people straight.
8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Hmm... don't see any exceptions for "making an example" out of someone... I fact, I would contend, knowing the Founders' feeling about debtors prisons and such, that imposing outrageous fines for the purpose of deterrence is very much an unconstitutional, and thus illegal, act.
Re: (Score:3)
I think a lot of judges need this 8th amendment tattooed on their foreheads.
The Courts are NOT a method for guaranteeing a company profit, or "setting an example" the punishment for anyone convicted should be based solely on THEIR crime and the damages they've caused.
But Hell, this country is fascist in all but name and admission -- so let's quit pretending the courts care about doing anything but paying lip-service to our constitution. A few more years of electronic voting machines and putting in Corporat
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Could've used a vampire, though.