> > nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> jobs...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> > .blah, blah, blah. Try to get interesting.
Pot, kettle, and all that.
> Andrew's point could be /very/ helpful to the OP if it prevents jail time or a
> massive judgment against them.
Unless the OP signed something, or does something dumb like scrape and
republish a huge amount of copyrighted stuff without permission, a
massive judgment seems unlikely, let alone jail time. Actual hacking
or commercial copyright infringement might lead to jail time. Merely
browsing a site with the browser software of his choice, without
either producing abnormally large traffic levels to the server (which
would get his usage noticed and might be treated as a DoS attack) or
republishing anything (which would get his usage noticed and might be
copyright infringement), certainly should do neither if the OP is in a
sane and just country. So unless he's in China or something...what
Google doesn't know won't hurt him. Or hurt Google.
anal_aviator - 25 Jul 2007 00:04 GMT
>>> nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> jobs...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> sane and just country. So unless he's in China or something...what
> Google doesn't know won't hurt him. Or hurt Google.
don't sweat it,
Andrew pops his ugly head up now and again, whenever there's anything
unhelpful to be said, he's also quite a Lawyer is our Andrew, I believe he
consulted on the OJ case .
just consider him the news group pet, feed him or Kick him it's up to you.
G. Garrett Campbell - 26 Jul 2007 08:03 GMT
Isn't a web browser a program.
Isn't the response a URL page?
One would just need to construct a url with an appropriate post from the
search string and read the response.
For personal use, how can that be different than a web browser?
>>>> nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> jobs...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> just consider him the news group pet, feed him or Kick him it's up to you.