I have to be sure to check that out later since I need to conserve my bandwidth while I download the beatles catalog to burn for my friends and family and The movies Invinvible, Crank and Beerfest so that I can sell them out of the trunk of my car with the help of DVD Decrypter and DVD Shrink...

This anti-piracy thing is so absurd it makes me laugh. What is society's incentive in combatting .mp3 piracy, to protect the obscene millions that recording executives overcharge for music disks and files? To further enrich decadent, drug-addicted rock stars? To ensure a never-ending supply of bad rock music by protecting the income of talentless hacks (the good ones won't be hurting anyhow)? These are the same people who have no problem with payola, or with blacklisting genuinely talented acts like the Dixie Chicks. In a just world, how rich should these people get? Every day I give thanks for Usenet, because the RIAA hasn't figured out any way to stop that. But I'm very sorry, but I have no desire in the whole world to cooperate with any efforts to keep entertainment industry moguls richer than everyone else, and not only do I tolerate music file sharing, I applaud it.

The RIAA are a bunch of greedy people that claim that they are not making money because of p2p,all the songs and movie were originally purchase ligally by someone, they sound like the cable pople that accuse people of stealing cable while now they are putting avertisements in cable and making more mone doing this cable was suppose to be comercial free, so what are we paying for? The RIAA, how much does a CD Blank or DVD cost? and you are just running a machine that makes copies copies for pennies and you charge $19 or better, who is robbing who?

I think the RIAA gets what they deserve. I remember before the RIAA made a big deal about Napster nobody even knew about P2P. I am a computer geek and I did not use P2P until my friends at the RIAA informed my how easy it is to use. If the RIAA really wanted to stop P2P then they should make music easy to get and cheep. I still by CD's of the bands I like. Just to support that band, not because the RIAA told me to. If this is stealing then why can't I copy my CD's for my own use. I will not keep store bought CD's in my car (someone may steal them). The RIAA will not allow me to copy my CD and when it gets scratched they will not replace it. I have to buy a new one if I want a replacement. This is stealing!

Vista Gets Ready to Ship It's called RC1, an alphabet soup moniker for what might be the final version...

This ia sad. I hope their PR Firm didn't get paid much, or maybe this is how they paid off their bill for downloading MP3s and movies! Either way, it's lame as they come. Want to gain some attention, have Carlos Mancia do your commericial. Dee Dee Dee.

Quick! Let's all order the free CD so we can waste more of their money. Hmmmm... I wonder if I can make copies for my friends? Maybe you should be doing some illegal filesharing while watching the video. I know Reefer Madness was a lot funnier while smoking a joint.

The RIAA already gets a cut of the blank CD sales of CDs that are sold labelled 'for music'. It's really unfortunate that the entire music industry is totally controlled soley by the record companies, of which are undoubtably in bed with the all the big broadcasting corporations that run all of the radio stations. Of the $15 or more dollars we as consumers spend on one CD that costs pennies (or a dime or 2) to make, only a very small percentage of it goes to the actual artists. Most of it goes to the record companies and distribution. What would be ideal would be for bands to sell music directly to the public, like from their website. If they charged $5 for one CD, they would already be getting 3 or 4 times the amount of money from that one CD versus royalties paid through a record company. Sadly, an artist/band will need the recording contract to become well known to be able to sell the records, either way. What's a band to do ?!

This is such a stupid, stupid fight. Music should be sold on CD's or other media. That's all well and good...but once it's out there, if it's legal to buy the equipment and technology to copy it, then it should be legal to copy it...for your own use. Now copying someone else's work and *reselling* it...that's another story, and that's where I think it is wrong, and a crime. I wouldn't want to spend 2 years writing a novel, then find out someone is reprinting it under their name and reselling it... ...but I would be flattered if they copied it because they wore out the first copy they bought reading it.

First, the RIAA is a consortium (used loosely) for most of the major industry labels out there. It seems that there sole purpose is to file law suits and prosecute those who download music. I'm still trying to figure out how and why "COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT" became such a heinous crime in light of the things happening in our political world today that seem to be bruched aside. Stealing is wrong in any form, but understandable considering the circumstances: CD prices of $12.00+, poor music, clone music, etc. It's primarily crap now. I'm surprised they didn't mention all the false law suits that have been filed. The ones on elderly people, or dead people, or people that don't own computers. The whole scam is a joke and is a scare tactic similar to the governements color codes and war cry of "TERRORISM". Terrorism is real but you don't need to live in fear of it. The RIAA is real, but you don't have to live in fear of them either.

Actually, Lazarus, not liking people or organizations has been justification for stealing throughout history. I don't suppose the British appreciated it when we used their ammunition to kill their soldiers and take their land for our own in the American Revolutionary War, but we didn't like them; we found them oppressive, and we decided to subvert their so-called legal authority to the land. And the RIAA is doing it right back. Why are people being sued for tens of thousands of dollars (though they are so very nice to only charge $4500 out of court) for downloading tens or hundreds of songs? All the "legal" downloading sites have already figured out songs are worth at most a buck a piece. It's because they don't like people that download music. Secondly, there is plenty of moral difference between downloading a song and shoplifting a CD. Stealing, according to most people's moral values, involves me taking something of value from someone without their permission, thereby increasing my overall value and decreasing theirs. When I shoplift a CD, I am taking value from the store. The store has already payed the distributor, who in turn has payed the RIAA, who in turn has payed (pennies) to the artist. The RIAA doesn't care about shoplifting because they already made their money, but the store has lost value. I have stolen from the store. But say I rather enjoy the Pussycat Dolls song "Buttons." I would never buy the CD because it has only one good song on it, in my hypotheical opinion, besides for the facts that they do not write their lyrics, their music, and only one of them even sings. So when I download the song from the internet, who has lost value? How have I gained value? The only value that could even conceive of being lost is the implied value, assuming I would purchase the CD if I could not download the song, which I, in my hypothical self, have refused to do. In my actual self, if I like many songs on a CD and/or I like the artist, I will purchase the album; if not, I will not, but I may download a song if it's catchy, because there is no transfer of value. Most of the rest of your comment is not worth giving real answers. Are you suggesting people picket the RIAA - would that be more "visible" than speaking up on a comment list? Would you come to the protest and argue for the RIAA since you are obviously so much more willing to make your beliefs "visible"? Your prattle about "honesty and clarity" is just as worthless and no more truthful about your own moral condition. I personally believe the RIAA is hiding just as much as, if not more than, anyone else. Perhaps their loss of money is due to their own inability to forcast music and technology trends. I discovered mp3s on the internet in 1997, two years before Napster was released and 3-4 before the RIAA started thier bitchfest. There was plenty of time for them to see the technology and the trends, figure out what might happen and get people like Napster to start charging the 99 cents from the get go. If they were proactive and not just completely whiny, maybe people would not be so intent on actively subverting them.

p.s. Ask any artist and they'll tell you, they don't make any money off of record sales. Most get payed about $0.005 on each album sale, so on a platinum record, they get $5000. Artists get the big bucks by touring, and free mp3s for everyone is just going to encourage more people to attend concerts and increase the major part of their income. So any artist that speaks out against downloading music, such as Metalica did, is either being payed a good sum by the RIAA to do so or is too stupid to realize this (I'm leaning toward stupidity for Metalica).

In reality when you copy music, videos, or software illegally, you are hurting the economy. Companies charge more to make up for their losses, so in the long run, you pay more for their products. As for production costs, blank CDs are raw material and only make up for a small part of the expense. Labor costs make up a greater part of the company's expenses. When the company starts to lose money, they are not going to get rid the artists; they are going lay off their employees. That makes for a tighter job market.

Lani, once again, that's assuming one would purchase the CD or DVD if they couldn't download it, which I'm hoping is not usually the case - it certainly isn't for me. Personally, I don't have the money to go around buying the CD for every one hit "wonder" out there.

First of all, according to the reports I've seen, RIAA is suing those who are offering the material for download, not those who are taking it. For any network to work one has to know where the material is and that is how RIAA finds those it sues. I'm sure it would sue those who downloaded if it had a way to locate them. However, the RIAA obviously does not dislike "people that download music." If it did, iTunes, Napster and all the other legitimate downloading sites would not exist. You and I clearly have different conceptions of honestly and dishonesty. With respect to theft, as you yourself say, theft is "taking something of value from someone without their permission, thereby increasing my overall value and decreasing theirs". By definition, when one acquires the music in a manner contrary to the terms of the copyright, one is doing exactly that. Recording artists may not get much for their albums, but they get something. Likewise, everyone in the distribution chain - not just the music executives but also the clerks who jobs die because the record stores close or stockers who get laid off at Wal-Mart because fewer albums are being purchased - is diminished by the value that you did not pay for that song. In that same light, the argument that "I can't afford to buy the album so it's OK if I download the song from an illegal source" is ethically void. It is no different than driving a Corvette off the local Chevy dealer's lot at 2:00 AM because you can't afford to pay for it at 2:00 in the afternoon. There is the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor because the car is worth $40-50 grand and the song about a dollar, but that is a legal distinction, not an ethical or moral one. I very much understand about one-hit wonders, and own a number of such albums - it's one of the reasons I very seldom buy albums anymore. However, as has been pointed out, about $1 per song is the sweet spot for legally downloading, perhaps not coincidently because that's about the prorated price of the one good song on many albums. Neither do I disagree that the recording industry has its head buried in the ground on the whole issue of selling music in any way other than via a physical objects. Heck, at a dollar a song delivered electronically, it would seem that there's a lot MORE money to be made by allowing people to pick and chose the songs they want to buy because there's a lot less overhead and fewer links in the delivery chain that need a portion. However, while the industry's stupidity and short-sightedness may be terminally fatal to it, it still is no excuse for stealing from the dying. If you want a song, pay iTunes, Napster 2.0 or, perish the thought, Wal-Mart the dollar and download it legally. If you find that distasteful, get yourself and 284 liked-minded souls elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate (a majority of the House and a 2/3 majority of the Senate [so you can override the certain veto]) and repeal the copyright laws or rewrite them to your specifications.

Actually, for a network to work, every entitiy in the network requires a distinct identification and can therefore be distinctly identified. If I think you have information that I want, I have to say, "Dearest Lazarus439, my name is Johnny D, will you please give me your information?" And you will likely say "Not on your life, I hardly know who you are!" Computer networks work the same way, as do most P2P networking programs. Both the senders and the receivers of files can be identified by their IP addresses logged in the file transfer. Of course, this only identifies the computer, not the person sitting at it, hence the strange lawsuits against the elderly or even dead people. I'm sorry you were unclear on my first statement about the RIAA; I thought the talk of the lawsuits implied it, but i should have said "they don't like people that download music illegally" - that is why they sue them for vastly more than the [supposed] "cost" of their crime. Thought they are a longshot, seeing how some of these countersuits go should be interesting (let me know if you have heard/do hear the outcomes): http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5161209.html http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregon-riaa-victim-fights-back-sues.html Perhaps talking of value is more of a semantic debate. My argument is that the process of me downloading a song has no marginal cost to anyone. If I would never have purchased the CD in the first place, no one is losing any value. And because the bits that make up the song have no intrinsic value, I am not gaining any value - the number of songs on my computer does not factor into my net worth. I can understand the argument that those bits are conceivably worth about a dollar, since that's what iTunes charges, but that's just what the RIAA is able to regulate. I'm sure they'd love it if I payed them a dollar every time I heard a song on the radio too! (apparently they already have it out for XM: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5411449) In addition, I seem to be somewhat ignorant when it comes to copyright laws (yes, you can take that one and run with it), but who gets to decide the scope? I've heard it is now illegal in the UK and being pushed by the RIAA in the US to rip your CDs at all, even for backups. When did all this ambiguity come into play that they can do this? Mixed tapes used to be all the rage, and no one cared if you shared those with your friends. Was that illegal? I don't remember the RIAA ever even implying I shouldn't be doing that. If you can't tell, Lazarus (et al.), I am thoroughly enjoying this debate, but if you think grand theft auto is morally or even ethically equivalent to breaking a fairly ambiguous copywrite law, please give me a heads-up before you come around my neighborhood.

1) I pay for my downloaded songs, streaming service, etc. 2)I used p2p until a legal version came out, then switched - I can make my own CDs with just the tracks I want instead of paying for 10 songs I don't like to get 2 songs I do. 3)As soon as the movie studios wise up and start offering downloadable versions of feature films as soon as they go out of the theaters, I predict p2p sharing of movies will drop, and millions will flock to download. The one caveat being that they'll have to price it reasonably (Whos going to pay $20 to download and burn a DVD of a movie when they can buy a new copy at walmart for $13.99?) If these execs would get their heads on straight and realize what century we're in, their lives would be a whole lot easier. If you offer a decent product at a decent price, most people will pay for it. The success of Napster, iTunes, etc. has shown that.

If even some of the basic claims against RIAA in the Oregon's woman's suit are true, then RIAA and it contractors/puppets do deserve to have their collective heads posted on pikes and their wallets emptied. Even so, I remain of the opinion that downloading music without permission of the copyright owner (which is not automatically the same has having to pay for it, since the owner can chose to give it away) is wrong. What I had read previously about RIAA's methods said that simply searched out and downloaded music just as anyone else does. When it found copyrighted material, it then filed an action for the ISP to provide the identity of the customer who had the IP address that offered the downloads. I have no problem with this approach as the evidence is in hand when filing for the identity information. However, that is a far cry from actually invading the computer to look around. There have been a number of reports that the actual "culprit" was an older child or teenager who loaded the p2p software without his/her parents' knowledge or permission. However, parents' being responsible for actions of their minor children is nothing new; just more complicated when the kids are smarter about something than their parents are. The issues of wardrivers, zombie PCs and other such spyware further complicate the matter, since it opens of the whole issue of what steps a reasonable person is expected to take to secure their computers/networks. The key element of copyright is that the owner can pretty much write in any terms he/she wants. Your "out", if you will, is to simply not avail yourself of the copyrighted product. Where there is a lot of debate about copyright centering on something called fair use. The essence of this is that, having legally obtained the copyrighted material, you have the right to use it for your private purposes (making a backup copy, ripping songs to create your own play lists, iPod loads, CDs, etc.) However, passing the material on to others is not fair use. A lot the RIAA and MPAA lobbying - and success, i.e., DMCA - centers around crippling fair use or killing it outright. This area is one where I emphatically agree that the RIAA, MPAA, etc, have been allowed to go too far.

If you wanna stop guestbook spammers just confirm url of this page to anti.spam.police@gmail.com with subject:ANTISPAM. Thx.