Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Media Music The Courts Your Rights Online News

EFA Claims No Illegal Material On mp3s4free.net 334

An anonymous reader writes "Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.net have come up with nothing. Only links to other sites and not copyrighted material have been found. The music industry is now saying that just linking is in itself illegal. This does not appear to be supported by Australian law." Update: 10/29 15:26 GMT by T : This story originally referred to "mp3s4free.com," while it should have said -- and has been corrected to read -- "mp3s4free.net."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFA Claims No Illegal Material On mp3s4free.net

Comments Filter:
  • by Empiric ( 675968 ) * on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:36AM (#7326282)
    Yes! Google, I have you now...
    • Attacking the linking itself is a tactic, the Scientologists tried against Karin Spaink [xs4all.nl], a Dutch writer, when she joined the bandwagon in exposing their evil cultism.

      The Dutch judge dismissed the claim, and showed a thorough insight in the technical side of the matter in the summation.

      Mazur.

    • It is possible to use search engines, e.g. Google, to provide links to illegal software. Example: Download! [google.com]. Google then provides the link for you (in the first list item). So, I provide information to Google where to find the file, and then Google links to the file itself. Should I be blamed for something Google does?
  • by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:37AM (#7326283)


    > Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.com have come up with nothing. Only links to other sites and not copyrighted material have been found. The music industry is now saying that just linking is in itself illegal.

    MP3s, WMDs, it's all the same...

  • by Andy Smith ( 55346 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:43AM (#7326309)
    If you ask me where Fred lives and I tell you he lives next door, that's fine. If you ask where you can hire a hitman and I tell you that Fred can do it for you and he lives next door, I could be an accomplice to murder.

    Same with linking. If a site posts links to other sites and one (or more) of them contains something illegal, but the illegal content was neither the overt or covert reason for the link, then that should be fine. But if the purpose of the link is solely or primarily to help you do something illegal then the person posting the link should be regarded as an accomplice.

    Obviously this requires discretion on the part of law enforcement agencies and, specifically, judges.
    • by surprise_audit ( 575743 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:00AM (#7326379)
      Take it a step further - turn yourself in for living next door to Fred-the-hitman. You're obviously "linked" to him by virtue of living in the same building (apartment block) or on the same street (separate houses). If enough people did that, maybe the police/courts would get the message that some level of linking is ridiculous.

      Note: You might want to make sure the police/judge have some sense of humour before trying it.

    • by Pseudonym ( 62607 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:13AM (#7326427)

      That analogy works for criminal cases, but what about in a civil case, such as is the case with copyright infringement?

      Let me put it this way: You want to break a contract that you signed. You ask me who can help you with that and I say "Fred can, and he lives next door". Should that be illegal?

      • by Reziac ( 43301 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:43AM (#7326529) Homepage Journal
        The other thing is, when someone mentions how much better life would be without those annoying creditors, and you mention your neighbour Freddie the Knife, there is presumed a specific intent in the initial act and response.

        I think they're trying to imply that a pageful of deliberately-aggregated links is exactly the same sort of criminal intent and participation. But what about search engines? the user inputs a parameter ("hitman") and out comes the desired, ah, hit ("Freddie the Knife", "Guido the Strangler", etc). In fairness in the light of the first example, the search engine would have to be indicted on a co-conspiracy charge, just for providing the links.

        And such an insanity has no logical stopping point. Pretty soon the coder who wrote the search engine is in the shit for aiding and abetting... the bandwidth provider for providing the access channel... glah. My brain hurts.

    • You may link to a site in good intent - but the (insert favorite explisive here) RIAA can afford good lawers, and a good lawer can probaly twist your own words to make it appear that you not only linked with intent to do something nasty, but are the worst persong on god green earth since original sin came into the big picture.

      Lawer: "..but you did now that the site you linked to served MP3s as well as the content you linked to?"

      You: "Uhm.. I guess I did see that once, yes.."

      Lawer: "So, not only did you

    • by IBitOBear ( 410965 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:33AM (#7326505) Homepage Journal
      So I have this friend fred and everybody is always making jokes about how honest he is. I make a link on my site "cheap crack and murder-for-hire at freds house" because that is the last thing I or anybody who knows me would beleive of fred. It is, in fact, funny.

      But the joke is on me because frank is just really good at hiding his darker nature and he does sell crack and kill people. Whoops, my bad. Made a joke, spend life in prision as an accessory to murder.

      Or even worse, franks "frank.com" gets taken over while I'm not looking by a less honest frank. And I am screwed again.

      Sound far fetched? Its not. It is simply likely outcomes which are "no more extreme" than your extreme example.

      Consider you hate $cientology, and you link to their site on your site, as an example of how screwed in the head you think they are. They change the contents of the page you link to so it contains some of their intellectual property and then get your site and your ISP taken down.

      Unlikely? Nope, actually a near-certian outcome.

      Since the linked-to content is out of the control of the linker, it is too easy "become guilty" as a result of your innocent act when a target page changes.

      Allowing prosecutors and complaining parties to "posit theroies" about your intent is always a bad thing. Consider the "Intent to Sell" clauses of drug laws in the US. The state doesnt have to proove any actual intent, as after "intent to sell" was made a criminal condition, they (re) decided that having more that a certian raw weight of drugs prooves that intent. Sounds clear and obvious and "ok"? Turns out it isn't. Consider that the statute says how many milligrams of LSD is one dose. Then they measure the LSD-soaked paper (the paper weighs several hundred times "one dose") so you have five doses and you go to jail for intent to sell because the raw wight of the innert material takes you over the limit. No abuse there. No sirreee.

      You simply cannot trust "the state" to do the right thing. If you could, then you wouldn't need the Bill of Rights (or non US equivalant where you live).

      That is your baby in that bathwater. Who do you choose to decide what gets thrown out and how? If you are smart you don't give that power to random strangers.
    • by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:44AM (#7326535) Journal
      If you ask me where Fred lives and I tell you he lives next door, that's fine. If you ask where you can hire a hitman and I tell you that Fred can do it for you and he lives next door, I could be an accomplice to murder.

      One of the elements of crime is intent. That's the part that requires a jury - both the greatest strength and (as with most things) the greatest weakness of the English-derived legal system at use in the US.

      In order to commit a crime, you must knowingly commit an act which deprives another of rights with the intent of so depriving the other party.

      (BTW, IANAL)

      That's not to say that there aren't statutory crimes, like running a red light, but in cases where an act could have multiple constructions (such as "Where is Bill" -> "Next door" vs. "Where is Bill, I need a good hitman" -> "Next door") the concept of intent must be introduced as a judicial guide.

      It's this principle that provides most of the insanity and complexity that comes out of our court system - McDonald's didn't pay a kazillion because some lady burned her lap on coffee, they payed because they it was proven in court that McDonalds corporation was knowingly distributing coffee at dangerously high temperatures - and that proven (in court) intent is what cost the case.

      -Ben
    • by pla ( 258480 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:57AM (#7326574) Journal
      But if the purpose of the link is solely or primarily to help you do something illegal then the person posting the link should be regarded as an accomplice.

      Well then, I guess we can all rest easy that my dog ate my collection of top-40 boy-bands, and sites like this exist only to allow me to make use of my protected right to a backup.

      I know I sure feel better that sites like this have a legal reason to exist.


      A tad more seriously, though, I've really grown quite tired of this topic. The RIAA sucks, the BSA sucks, the MPAA sucks. Some people will buy, and some people will pirate. Trade groups need to accept that the pirates wouldn't buy their products under any conditions whatsoever (short of giving stuff away), and treat them as the free advertising (rather than "criminals") they serve as.

      If I see my pirating friend Steve playing a cool new game, I may go out and buy it. He might never have plunked down a penny for software in his entire life, but some of his friends have and will.

      Industry groups only need to worry about this sort of "advertisement" if their product sucks. I have little doubt that the RIAA knows all-too-well the complete crap they push on us, thus their fear of try-before-you-buy. Those who actually have quality products to sell love free advertising, and do their best to get people to check it out.

      I seem to recall reading a SciAm article once upon a time that mentioned that, since we've all had to grow filters against advertisements, the single best way for a company to sell products consists of recommendations between friends. So sure, it make perfect sense that the RIAA would sacrifice the single most effective form of advertising - since in this case, it mostly ends up negative.

      Okay, I've gone a tad OT here. I just wish the world made a bit more sense. Real, law-abiding people getting screwed by the RIAA (or its AU equivalent) legal machine does not make sense. People wonder why I feel so strongly anti-corporate. I need point no further than the RIAA, and you'll either get it or not, end of discussion.
      • "I seem to recall reading a SciAm article once upon a time that mentioned that, since we've all had to grow filters against advertisements, the single best way for a company to sell products consists of recommendations between friends. So sure, it make perfect sense that the RIAA would sacrifice the single most effective form of advertising - since in this case, it mostly ends up negative."

        Haven't the MPAA tried to get mobile phones banned from cinemas because the punters were texting their mates and telli

    • Murder and copyright enfringement are NOT THE SAME THING! Don't compare them nor the sitatuions involving them to each other.

      Otherwise, telling someone how to jay walk is just as bad as telling someone where a hitman is. Or telling someone how to copy something out of a book is as bad as telling someone how to load a gun. Yeah, there's this entire string of things that are good or bad or neither depending on the situation, but that's it, they depend on the situation.

      Most of the time, it will require di
  • RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by Texas Rose on Lava L ( 712928 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:43AM (#7326310) Homepage Journal
    It's mp3s4free.net, not mp3s4free.com.
  • by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposerNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:45AM (#7326322) Homepage
    If Australian law is anything like US law, in order to obtain a search warrant the lawyers for the music industry had to provide affidavits to the court giving their reasons to believe that the web site contained infringing material. Since the site in fact contains only links, either they lied in their affidavits, which would be both perjury and a fraud upon the court, or they didn't even bother to look at the site, which would be grossly negligent.
    Am I missing something, or are they in very deep legal trouble?
    • by cyril3 ( 522783 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:08AM (#7326405)
      IANAL but as far as I know an Anton Pilar order is primarily designed to allow the applicant to seize property that may be subject to action or may be used as evidence in an action when it is possible that the property might be destroyed or removed from the jurisdiction of the court. (I think the Anto Pilar was a ship that was subject to action as to ownership or was security of some kind)

      In that case I suspect the requirements are less onerous than search warrants and they probably only had to show that the property they were looking to seize (Computers, discs and logs etc) would be likely to be or contain evidence that might otherwise be destroyed or removed etc.

  • Response? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:49AM (#7326341) Homepage
    I'm wondering what people can do in response to raids like this? I know the DMCA has some tricky wording on the issue, something about how they just have to have suspicion or something. Can someone clarify what options one has to respond to an RIAA "raid" of this nature?

    • Well, seeing as it was in Australia, which doesn't actually have a law known as the DMCA, and the RIAA is an american company (ARIA is the company you're after), I'd you probably need to RTFA. Different laws in different countries. Weird eh?
      • The Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 is not entirely disimilar from the DMCA.

        A copy of the Parliamentary Library's Bills Digest (crib notes for parliamentarians who are not lawyers is here [aph.gov.au] for the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Bill 1999
      • Of course I didn't RTFA, you must be new here ;)

        But lets suppose this DID take place in the US, what form of retaliation could we resort to?

    • I posted last week about running for parliament on a technology based platform. Well, I've set up the first draft of the party website:

      http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/

      Please mirror the site if you can, there's a ZIP file (92K) on site for those who want to download it. You can bitch and moan all you like, or you can DO something about it. I plan to.

      Quizo69
  • by sir_cello ( 634395 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @02:49AM (#7326342)

    Linking per se is not illegal, but linking to infringing material will be, especially when you have reasonable belief that the material is illegal.

    In the case of google or a search engine, they have a good defence: file a DMCA take down notice to have the infringing material unlinked. It is unreasonable to expect that google would self-police their content, it's just intractible.

    But when you have a site set up, specifically to provide references to infringing material, largely for the purpose of allowing people to access that material, then I'm afraid you probably don't have a strong case. It's already looking bad "in principle", despite any technical issues.

    Attempting to "beat the system" by using this approach is really not the way forward for any advocacy over rights. It's effectively trying to cheat around the technical points while in principle supporting copyright infringement.

    • Under Australian copyright law, this would be a perfectly legal setup:
      • Load a CD tower up with music CDs
      • Publish a web site that allows you to download music from the tower, with automatic ripping to MP3 as part of the download process
      • Stick a disclaimer on the site that, if you are not the owner of the CDs in the tower, then you are required to use the resulting MP3s only for the purposes of study or review (two of the four "fair use" rights under Australian law)

      Offering files under Australian law isn

      • Incorrect:
        • There are two different ways to breach copyright law in Australia:
          • Directly breaching copyright (copying something which you have not been given the right to copy).
          • Authorising the breach of copyright (the sharing of copyrighted material which others do not have the right to copy could be regarded as this)
        • There are no general fair use provisions in Australia. You may use copyrighted material only to the extent that it has been licensed for your use. [There are some specific fair use provisions
    • You claim that www.mp3s4free.net operated under bad intent. Do you have anything to back that up? Can you prove to me that they knew they were linking to copyrighted material? I doubt it.

      I can equally malign the music industry in this case. First, the search warrent was for content they could have gotten without a raid at all: a website and logs. Instead of just downloading the site, the wrecked a man's house and a place of business. Second, I can speciously claim that all of the copyright violation

  • Guy: Hey man, do you know where the drug dealers on this block are?

    Me: Um, there's a sketchy guy that hangs out on the corner over there who might know about it.

    Cop: FREEZE!! You're under arrest for drug dealing!

    Me: Damn you DMCA! Now I'm a drug dealer cause I know where the sketchy people hang out!
  • 2600 (Score:4, Informative)

    by SupeRobot Ninja ( 719240 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:09AM (#7326410)
    It's hardly fair, but the DMCA already has a positive track record in this area; 2600 was forced to remove a link on their webpage to a separate page which hosted the crack that disabled DVD copy protection.
  • by IBitOBear ( 410965 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:15AM (#7326433) Homepage Journal
    Consider the chilling (abbusable) effect of making linking illegal or conspiritorial act.

    You have a problem with a person or organization. You link to their site as an example of the problem you have with them. (Say you link to the Debold site because they are "election fraudsters".)

    If your problem is that they can (a) persue you because you linked to their stuff or (b) change the page you innocently linked to to an infringing content site (you infringe their content, but they don't, so clearly you meant others to infringe their property.)

    Plus there is a proof-by-induction problem. You link to a friends page because you like him. Unbenonst to you, he links to infringing material. An over-zealous RIAA decides that the "only possible reason" for you to have linked to such a malcontent was that you must share his every view.

    How many link steps does it take to wash an outgoing link?

    Suppose you have a bunch of links lying fallow on your friends page that you haven't bothered to clean out for a while. A new user takes over an old firends equally fallow account and posts kiddie porn. Your link reads (and always had read) something innocent like "A young lady who's company I enjoy" but "margrets-life.com" now takes you to naughty-margret the hottest little 12 year old in siagon...

    Its a mire.

    You sould be able to link to anything. Essentially when you link you are in a crowded stadium and you are pointing your finger across the crowded field (at a possible stranger). Such pointing should not make you responsible for the actions of the person you are pointing at.

    Its just too much "who guesses what whom intended where? We'll let the prosicutor who is up for reelection decided... he should be impartial..."

    (And yes, this goes for a link that says "crack and murder-for-hire at franks house" because when you wrote it, it might have been a joke. How do you *really know* what frank does in his off time anyway?)

    Don't sacrafice your life on the alter of "seeming reasonable".
    • "You sould be able to link to anything. Essentially when you link you are in a crowded stadium and you are pointing your finger across the crowded field (at a possible stranger). Such pointing should not make you responsible for the actions of the person you are pointing at."

      That's absolutely the best analogy on the subject I've ever seen. Hope you don't mind being quoted!
    • OK, but how about a counter example?

      Suppose you host some infringeing MP3s with the express purpose of making those files available to all and sundry on the Web.

      You then meet with a group of "link site" operators in person (no paper/email trail) and disclose to them the URLs of your files. These people then proceed to post the links to your infringeing material on their own sites.

      The copyright cops take notice. They find these links to your files over 50% of the sites on the Internet. They track you down
      • That's not trickey. You HOSTED the material in that example, so you are the responsible party if it is illegal to HOST the material. You "expressly" hosted it. That is an agregous offense. Sucks to be you dude...

        Where is the question?

        We are discussing whether those "link site operators" should be held liable. (They shouldn't BTW) If you are stupid enough to commit a actionable offense in public, you deserve what you get. All the "link farmers" did was draw attention to you. For the most part, the l
      • Your defense? "Honest, your honor ... I had no idea that other people knew where to find those files.

        That "defense" isn't. Take a look at copyright law, you're liable.

        Basicly your example boils down to me meeting with a bunch of people and I tell them I'm going to strip naked in a crowded stadium. Those people then stand around the stadium POINTING AT ME. I am illegally exposing myself, even if I claim I had no idea anyone would know which corner to see me in. The people pointing at me are NOT illegally
    • You link to a friends page because you like him. Unbenonst to you, he links to infringing material. An over-zealous RIAA decides that the "only possible reason" for you to have linked to such a malcontent was that you must share his every view.

      Didn't we have this evil linking business before? If you merely know someone on the communist blacklist, then you are on the blacklist. Then recurse for those who know you.

      Are you now or have you ever been a pirate sympathizer? Do you share in their anti-corp
    • If linking to "copyrighted" material is outlawed, the whole web becomes illegal. Everything on the web is a link and the maker of a page can not be responsible for what's at the end of that link. If someone tells me Bob has a nice music collection, I might point to Bob's music collection. I have no idea that Bob has copyrighted material on his site and I'm not about to sift through all 100,000 of his MP3s and compare them to a RIAA catalog. The RIAA has a duty to send Bob a cease and dissist order on be
  • by Tsar ( 536185 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:20AM (#7326457) Homepage Journal
    "Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.com have come up with nothing."

    How much nothing did they find? No matter--whether it was 4 minutes 33 seconds or only a minute, nothing is still a copyright violation [cnn.com], and John Cage's publishers will have something to say about the nothing that was found!

    The question is, how do you remove it?
    • I have a test CD for setting up sound systems and checking CD players specifications. It has a track of silence as a refrence for signal to noise measurements. I wonder if it is in violation of copyright? I didn't see any refrence to cage.
      • I have a copy of that CD. Fortunately, the track to which you're referring is of hip-hop silence, which contains a two-second sample of Cage's original 4'33" repeated many times.

        Listen to it again and you'll agree that the first two seconds sound exactly the same as the next two seconds, and so on. Actually, I'm surprised you didn't notice it before!
    • What would they do if they found 'The Sound Of One Hand Clapping'. Hey do you realise that J Cage does own a the copywrite for the sheet music to his Silence. So it is illegal for you to Photo Copy and destribute for the purpose of performance a copy Silence! Thats why it's so fsck'n noisey in todays world I guess.
    • Heh! Only when the dumbasses credit Cage with the composition or allude to a derivative work based on it.

      Yeah, this was a haw-haw post, but if you took a song I wrote and made it sound ANYWHERE near similar (even if just marginal) and then claimed I was a co-writer, I'd sue yer ass too (well, not until ya got famous though...don't want to shoot myself in the foot too soon).

      I have a friend that was involved in something similar. My company designs and publishes sound design works for synths and otherwise
  • MP3's (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @03:34AM (#7326509) Homepage
    It might be that the site just had a list of MP3's that are in the public domain. Just because something is in MP3 format doesn't mean that it isn't legal

    Rus
    • So, do they actually listen to the content, or are they just seeing names that might match their artists and launching a suit?

      Suppose I host a site on which I place an MP3 called "Britney's Latest Hit.mp3". Should I expect to get a take-down notice and a lawsuit? Or do you think they'd actually download the MP3 and listen to my 4-year-old daughter Britney banging on 4 saucepans and a plate with a wooden spoon?


  • The music industry is now saying that just linking is in itself illegal. This does not appear to be supported by Australian law.

    Humm. Is this anything like SCO declaring copyright is illegal?
  • Hi all,

    trying to make linking illegal is sneaky, because here they are trying to take advantage of a subjective matter (illegal MP3s transfers). This issue is controversial ; thus, trying to enforce a ban on linking will be easier on a subject where people are not focused primarily on this concern. But it should appear much more clearly as a dangerous thing if applied for instance on content shifting trough time etc.

    Pardon my English, but the Frenchies still can't admit that they are supposed to speak any
  • by GreenKiwi ( 221281 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @05:15AM (#7326736)
    I would think that sites like this would be to the advantage of the music industry. Don't bother going after the site, just go after all the links to illegal music that they have ever so nicely collected for you.

    kiwi
  • Yay for Oz (Score:3, Insightful)

    by POds ( 241854 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @06:24AM (#7326892) Homepage Journal
    <quote> This does not appear to be supported by Australian law.</quote>

    And why should it be? Just because i know theres a drug dealer down the road and may direct the odd pot head to him. I dont think im breaking the law. Just helping someone feed their addiction.

    Immoral as it is, its not illegal.
  • Seeing John Howard is s*cking the cock of every big business in Oz all at once it won't be long now till linking is illegal. He made chipping playstations etc illegal.
  • In Sweden (Europe) around two years ago some man in his 20ies was actually charged and found guilty to direct linking to illegally hosted copyrighted music - ven though he never had anything to do with the files themselves. He got away pretty easy money and time wise but still it set an example here what is legal and what isn't.

    I coulden't find a story as it was a while ago, but I'm sure some Nordic reader here remembers it?

  • by Casualposter ( 572489 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @10:14AM (#7327736) Journal
    Ahem. (Best revival preacher's voice)

    I think that it should be clear by now that the solution to the vast social problems of today is the internet. Where else do we have LINKS to Weapons of Mass Destruction? Where else to do we have nudity and violence galor? Were it not for the violation of our public decency caused by the intrusion of this vile satanic entity, the internet, we would be a peaceful people strong and secure in the bliss of ignorance.

    Ignorance of the sins of the internet. The porn. The violence. The pedophiles sitting at their glowing screens temping the virginity of the children. Think of the children and the unlimited amount of smut, porn, nudity, violence, and crime that they are exposed to every single moment they are on the internet. The internet is everywhere. In your schools, in your homes, in cafes and parks, and in every businessplace in the world.

    Yes, friends, we must petition our legislators to outlaw this vile corruption that has been visited upon us by the very forces of Hades; whose sole purpose is to consume the souls of our children and turn this blissfully ignorant world into a Hell on Earth.

    I tell you now, brothers and sisters, that the root of all evil is money. And the internet's most profitable businesses are crimes against humanity: the violation of women and children who are hapless porn victims, the teenagers temped to steal billions from poor, starving musicians because that theft is merely a mouse click away. Click. Click. Click. Another poor musician starves to death.

    We must empower the magnificent defenders of our blissful ignorance to protect us from these might forces of iniquity. The RIAA, The MPAA, our brothers in congress--yes children, you know the ones who share the views of our defenders; those tireless public servants who like the dearly departed Mr Sonny Bono-author of the copyright extension act that prevents Mickey Mouse from being turned into a vile star of pornography, crafted the DMCA, the COPA, and other valiant legislation. But we must have more. We must have an end to this internet thingy. Now. Before it is too late for our children.

    Thank you and good night. Please donate heavily to our cause to protect our precious children.
  • by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Tuesday October 28, 2003 @10:18AM (#7327761) Homepage
    I don't get it.

    Am I infringing copyright if I say "Leopold Stokowski and Mickey Mouse shake hands in Walt Disney's Fantasia?"

    Am I committing an indecency if I say "Grove Press created a sensation when they published Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer?"

    Am I committing a terrorist act if I say "Nuclear weapons information which the government, in the eighties, claimed was classified, appears in the Encyclopedia Americana?"

    I don't think so.

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...