So yes today..it was a Thursday, a lovely, beautiful, bright sunny day. I took a trip to the dentist for x-rays in the morning, to the grocery store for coffee, followed by staring at Tammy's wedding registry on the net till noon. We thoroughly enjoyed the staring part, as she picked out various items, scanning over the ratings on each. We then talked to Manda on the phone for awhile, while eating lunch (enjoyed that part very much indeed..Manda, not the lunch although it too was good). Later in the day we took a trip to the mall: to find a bargain finder, go to the bank, and to get some flats for planting the sweet peas that arrived in the mail today. Turned out that we couldn't find any flats but did manage the bargain finder, and the bank. Stopped by Tim Hortons to see if we could steal the car from Mark, but he needed it for his deposit, so after getting a couple icecaps we returned home to rake the front yard of all the gravel that's been spit on it from the trucks in the winter. Hard work, but at least it was warm out. When Mark returned home we took the car to Wal-Mart, where we managed to lay our hands on some flats. So our sweet peas seeds are now soaking in some wet paper towel, and will be planted indoors tomorrow. I also chatted with my mom a bit in the evening as well as the normal crew, so hey, pretty good day.

So have you guys heard the news, that downloading is once more considered legal in Canada due to a judge's ruling..do you think that it is a ruling we should follow? CD sales don't seem to really going down despite down loaders, so should it still be considered theft? I guess the judge said that he cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service. I'm not sure that my jury is in yet, I'll have to think it over some more, since I know looks can be deceiving and certainly just because a judge said so, doesn't mean it's so..if in deed that "so" is breaking God's law. I suppose it depends on what exact property belongs to whom, if that "what" is being harmed, who the owner of the "what" is and what are his rights, as well as what did he agree to in the first place (sorry almost playing a mind came with the "what"s, but read it again and you'll get it if you didn't the first time:D)
Well anyhow, like I said, I'm still considering it so if you want to throw your opinions at me (please try to aim), feel free to share (unless your thoughts are copyrighted) before my jury comes back with a verdict made from only the defense's side, excluding that of the plaintiff. :D Here are some links so you can read for yourselves if you care or dare to. :) Link 1 Link 2 Link 3
Pretty much the same story word for word, but I felt cheap just putting one up.

Off for a snack and to bed I go.

Jode