Comments on: MPAA nails ’screener’ man http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10669 p2pnet.net - reader powered Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:48:59 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10669/comment-page-1#comment-131204 Reader's Write Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:05:36 +0000 #comment-131204 "The cousin, also 22, was arrested for felony second degree burglary and embezzlement, says the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)." Is this not defamation? "The cousin, also 22, was arrested for felony second degree burglary and embezzlement, says the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)" This could be defamation of the ony true type of defamation (in my opinion), that a person is falsely said to have comitted a prosecutable crime. This shows a bias by MPAA. The cousin is just a suspect but MPAA has already tried the cousin and found her guilty. Clearly if the cousin (secretary) had been tried and found guilty, MPAA would have stated so. Maybe the cousin is eventually not charged or in in the end it is decided there is no case against her because it turns out that her cousin stole the videos at her workplace. Anyway, the judicial system has to allow all the charged persons (including the cousin secretary in this case) to defend themselves. Usully when people are just suspects of robbery the police does not make announcements or publicly name the suspects. That is fair, as no one should be publicly named until the person is formally accused. Sounds like a witch hunt. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com “The cousin, also 22, was arrested for felony second degree burglary and embezzlement, says the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America).”

Is this not defamation?
“The cousin, also 22, was arrested for felony second degree burglary and embezzlement, says the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)”

This could be defamation of the ony true type of defamation (in my opinion), that a person is falsely said to have comitted a prosecutable crime.

This shows a bias by MPAA. The cousin is just a suspect but MPAA has already tried the cousin and found her guilty. Clearly if the cousin (secretary) had been tried and found guilty, MPAA would have stated so.

Maybe the cousin is eventually not charged or in in the end it is decided there is no case against her because it turns out that her cousin stole the videos at her workplace. Anyway, the judicial system has to allow all the charged persons (including the cousin secretary in this case) to defend themselves.

Usully when people are just suspects of robbery the police does not make announcements or publicly name the suspects. That is fair, as no one should be publicly named until the person is formally accused.

Sounds like a witch hunt.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10669/comment-page-1#comment-131157 Reader's Write Thu, 07 Dec 2006 04:12:53 +0000 #comment-131157 7 years in jail, whoa that's a lot! But the fact that he tried to make a buck out of it makes him a Pirate in the word's true meaning. I don't support traditional piracy at all because it's clearly done for profit. 7 years in jail, whoa that’s a lot! But the fact that he tried to make a buck out of it makes him a Pirate in the word’s true meaning. I don’t support traditional piracy at all because it’s clearly done for profit.

]]>