Just when I thought I was inured and jaded to all the lies and hyperbole of the "other side", I got a surprise. This article, for whatever the reason, is a perfect example of the kind of crap we are up against. This comes from a college newspaper, and that made it all the more ironic.

From http://www.ucsdguardian.org/cgi-bin/opinion?art=2005_04_21_01
"Lack of guilt over illegal file-sharing ensures the failure of RIAA lawsuits

By ROBIN AVERBECK and MARIANNE MADDEN
Staff Writers

Even with the specter of Recording Industry Association of America lawsuits looming over their glowing computer screens, illegal file-sharers continue to operate gleefully and generally free of guilt. Our generation is the first to be reared on the Internet, and we operate according to a double standard and a questionable ethical code: Shoplifting CDs from a store is abhorrent; downloading the same albums for free on i2hub is a fun afternoon. Why, when all other social norms of “do not steal” are understood and observed, does this maxim fly out the window when we get in front of our computers?

The technology of the Internet burst upon the scene when we were coming of age, lacking a guidebook and spreading like wildfire while our identities and morals were still developing. Without a road map or rules, parents had no idea how to handle this new tool, or even what it was, while our generation took to the technology like fish to water. Becoming computer savvy is similar to learning a language: Those who start out at an early age seem to catch on more quickly. Hence, the college students now being served subpoenas by the RIAA were mere middle-schoolers when they first learned the magic of the Internet, and they learned it before their parents or any other authority figure dispensed the moral do’s and don’ts of cyberspace.

So, we made up rules on our own — and we decided that downloading illegal copies of music and movies definitely does not count as an ethical trespass, or if it does, it is a minor one that is made less severe by the perceived transgressions of the music industry: inflated CD prices, homogeneous and subpar offerings, and so forth. Unfortunately, the RIAA — spurred by its own moral codes, or merely the bottom line — vehemently disagrees.

Many of us expect the music industry to adapt to our addiction to free music, or we revel in the idea of spoiled pop stars getting ripped off. At the very least, we operate blissfully unaware of the possible consequences of denying the music industry our dollars. A UCSD student the Guardian interviewed, likely facing an RIAA lawsuit, said the lawsuit has made him stop downloading music, but he “didn’t really feel bad” when he did it.

“If I was downloading music from Jay-Z and I saw he was having a rough year then I’d feel bad, but most of the artists I download I don’t see doing badly,” the student said.

Another student currently assigned to an IP address listed in the recent lawsuit told us, “I’m getting in trouble for having a Janet Jackson song and Usher. Usher is walking around with my college tuition on his wrist!”

Clearly, the music industry has yet to convince this generation that downloading music is significantly harming the profits of individual artists. How, in a world where VH1 and MTV lineups are stacked full of shows documenting the excesses of celebrity lifestyles — with an emphasis on female pop starlets, hip-hop artists and their entourages, all laden with bling bling — could we ever buy the argument that students are forcing musical artists out of house and home? Another UCSD ex-downloader expecting prosecution described herself as “scared shitless” about the lawsuit, but described the music lawsuits as “a lost cause that they’re stressing too much over. … I feel like people are still going to buy CDs. … There’s no way the music industry is going to go kaput.”

She speaks for a generation of American college students, and anecdotal evidence supports the assertion that downloading may be taking a small slice out of CD purchases, but not obliterating them. Whatever the economic reality, the RIAA is perceived as a greedy bully, not as a legitimate victim of stealing.

The RIAA started a suing spree two years ago that has continued with settlement after settlement — leading many to conclude that the RIAA is draining downloaders’ pockets and lining their own to compensate for a small loss from illegal file-sharing.

Although the average suit from the RIAA is settled out of court for $3,000 or so, the fines can run into the hundreds of thousands, and such financial consequences contribute to the ethos of downloading as rebellion against corporate America. Yet such a justification provides little comfort when the fat cats come knocking on your door — exactly the situation faced by the 25 UCSD students being hunted by the RIAA after using i2hub. Yet guilt and remorse are not all several of these students say they are feeling as they await court documents. Instead, they feel victimized and unfairly targeted, but resigned to their fates.

One target for a subpoena said, “I don’t think [facing a lawsuit] is fair at all. It’s kind of sad that I’d like to see more people get punished for it. It’s such a small number. Only 25 students — come on! That’s not even an elementary school classroom. ... It’s like you have three murderers and you only convict one.”

Clearly, the die has been cast. Whatever conditions that would have created a sense of ethical boundaries on the Internet community have been lost, and it’s too late to create them. Or maybe our scruples are simply superseded by the ease of downloading music, even when facing a slim chance of being caught and paying a heavy price.

What’s certain is that this generation of prosecuted file-sharers — and the droves of unprosecuted ones hiding in the shadows — spare no sympathy for musical artists and especially the RIAA. While it seems most students targeted for lawsuits at UCSD will stop sharing files online and warn their friends to do the same, it still remains to be seen whether RIAA lawsuits, or even more extreme measures, will wipe out file-sharing altogether. If history holds, several new peer-to-peer networks will spring up to replace any that are eradicated, bolstered by hordes of downloaders fueled by the convenience of file-sharing and bitterness toward the music industry and the tactics used by the RIAA."
===============SNIP=================
I don't know if this article will anger you to the point it did me...after
the initial shock of this article wore off, I just hung my head and shook it for a few seconds, and felt so sorry for the people who the piece.

"So it goes."- Kurt Vonnegut, from THE CHILDREN'S CRUSADE, A Duty Dance With Death

Sounds like it was written by Orrin Hatch!

..."One target for a subpoena said, “I don’t think [facing a lawsuit] is fair at all. It’s kind of sad that I’d like to see more people get punished for it. It’s such a small number. Only 25 students — come on! That’s not even an elementary school classroom. ... It’s like you have three murderers and you only convict one..."
This should be a statement of enlightenment to the "older" generation.The is the American future attitude - if you will.
The same reason that G.W. Bush is attempting to convert the Social security system through the exclusion of the same "pepsi" generation.The exclusion of the support of "oldsters" thhrough the social security taxes levied against almost all of us that work and have taxes deducted from our paychecks.
The current "establishment" think tanks Know - for a fact that the gen "X" er's feel like the generation's that have passed on before them -have used it all up!!

"Clearly, the music industry has yet to convince this generation that downloading music is significantly harming the profits of individual artists."

Primary because there is no empirical evidence to substantiate this bullshit claim.

Actually it's the music industry that is significantly harming the profits of the artists

Its a wonderful article. It simply says that all of the bullshit felled upon this generation has failed to stick and it looks like its not going to. Now I understand that this piece is complete fifth rate propaganda, but can't you see the glory in its failure. It's fucking beautiful man!

"Clearly, the music industry has yet to convince this generation that downloading music is significantly harming the profits of individual artists.""

EXACTLY. Thank god we're a semi-respectable generation. Unlike our elders, who are actually buying this b.s. While you complain about us not being convinced, I relish my (and others') demand for evidence. Friggin sheep. Dumb bastard.

Screw you, Sherm. I don't buy any of it. Only stupid twits who get their news from Fox believe this b.s. And they're teaching their kids the same thing. It's not generational--it's ignorance in all it's glory.. Now apologize to the nice elders who are watching you...

Sherm, not all of us are buying it. Those that care enough to find out the facts know the score.

BTW, I don't way I don't watch Fox.

clickplay,

I have watched all my life as my taxes were steadly raised on what came out of my paycheck. My whole life I have paid those taxes and have never, ever, so much as collected one day's worth of unemployment dollars, wanting only to work and have a decent job.

During that time I have seen the politicians raid that fund. Where once there was adquate funding there is now not enough. During that same time I have also watched yearly, as the deductions were continually raised. Now in the fall of my life I find that it isn't enough to get by on. I wasn't asked if I wanted it pulled from my check, nor was I asked when it was raided. Now I am asked after paying what would have been a good yearly wage for me at the start of my working carreer to boot far more into the pot without the job to go with it. At the time insurance as part of the guarrentee to keep me in health during my "golden years" wasn't something the government encouraged. Like you, it leaves us out in the cold.

wet1, you don't watch Fox? I could have guessed that, just because you're here. And you know what I mean when I say the mess we are leaving for our kids is unconscionable. Even Sherm deserves better. Sometimes I have a hard time figuring out where these sleazes came from; then I realize it doesn't matter. We simply have to make them go away. For Sherm and the others who will blame it all on us (cough).

The only thing worse than the RIAA's BS is these whiny ass college pussies and their ridiculous rationalizations. It sure looks like Cribs came back to bite the record industry in the ass. Hee hee.

"Usher is walking around with my college tuition on his wrist!”

What in God's name does this mean anyway? Did this jerk spend his tuition money on Usher product? Dumb, dumb, dumb!

Reading the comments of these idiots reminded me of this article:

"Yep, life'll burst that self-esteem bubble

She also has noticed that the undergraduates she teaches tend to have an inflated sense of self.

"When you correct writing, they'll say, 'It's just your opinion,' which is infuriating. Bad grammar and spelling and sentences being wrong is not my opinion, it's just bad writing," she says.

So when the criticism flows, some college students are increasingly seeking counseling. ....

"One of the things the managers talked about is an incredible sense of entitlement for people who don't deserve it," she says. "They'll come in right out of college and don't understand why they're not getting promoted in three months."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2005-02-15-self-esteem_x.htm

what commie bullshit, this is the words of a facsist

I am convinced that we have to get ride of these RIAA/MPAA bisiness at any cost to protect our societyand our individuality.

Sorry elders. Part of it is still a generational thing, but I didn't mean everybody. I kind of assumed that since you guys were here and speak out against it etc that you don't support it. It's not only people who watch fox though, it's also people who watch cnn or msnbc.

mroop - that was a good article and reminded me of this article, which is also good: http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20041112-000010.html

mroop quoted and responded: "'Usher is walking around with my college tuition on his wrist!'

What in God's name does this mean anyway? Did this jerk spend his tuition money on Usher product? Dumb, dumb, dumb!"
mroop, I think that the kid just meant that the "bling" that Usher wears on one wrist is equal to the cost of his tuition. Usher is doing well. He is one of the successful RIAA "artists". People buy his cds. People listen to him on the radio. And according to the article, students download Usher mp3s.

You think that the students are all stupid. I'll agree that too many have been shielded from the real world with an overdose of self-esteem. But these students are aware of all the hands in the pot. They are aware of corporate greed. They've lived through the Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, and Adelphia scandals. They look at the RIAA as another greedy corporation that wants them to listen to the music and pay through the nose for it. They look at the RIAA as a corporation that doesn't represent the artists. And that's exactly what the RIAA is.

mroop needs to look in a mirror to see stupid.

Lachatte is right. What the RIAA is doing amounts to extortion. And no one is doing anything to stop them.

p2p is a tool. It can be used by morally impaired people in a harmful way. If several million people download the new Fiddy-Cent album, play it and "enjoy" it every day (as hard as it is for me to fathom anyone enjoying it) and don't buy it, in one sense that is morally impaired. But you could also look at it as Divine retribution against the even more morally impaired music industry. That should be cause for rejoicing, not finger-wagging.

The authors of this article fail to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible use of the tool of p2p. They lump every use in one category -- theft. Thus we have the spectacle of the intellectually bankrupt trying to lecture those they perceive as morally bankrupt.

But that describes most of journalism in a nutshell. LOL.

The thing that the RIAA is finding is that our generation are not the shameless idiots that will buy anything. We're using our heads when we purchase things and we compare price rates and we fight unfair prices (CDs for example.) The RIAA wants to make us all stupid so that we will buy their crap. I agree with the student in the article when he said that Usher was "walking around with [his] college tuition on his wrist". People that make it big in the music slave trade always get more money so that they can become better poster children. Sometimes, they turn around and create their own heartless conglomerate. I feel sorry for independant artists, whom the RIAA chokes to death finacially and buys out activist judges to get rid of lawsuits from them.

mroop - the only thing this article demonstrates is that you are on the wrong side of history. Have fun wolling in the ash heap along with all those dead commies.

Your old antiquated way of looking at things went out with slavery and the earth is flat society.

autodidact - "If several million people download the new Fiddy-Cent album, play it and "enjoy" it every day (as hard as it is for me to fathom anyone enjoying it) and don't buy it, in one sense that is morally impaired. "

On what moral ground do you base this? Last time I checked it wasn't ILLEGAL to download. Nor should it be considered morally wrong. So why does it make someone "morally impaired?" Yet, the RIAA has committed far more "morally impaired" acts than downloading a 50-cent CD.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/16463

Please re-read this article and find what "morally impaired" really is before you accuse downloaders of it, when the reality of the matter is that its no different than recording off FM radio, and is protected by the Home Audio Recording Act.

I understand the point your trying to make, don't get me wrong. But its unfair to claim people are "morally impaired" when doing something that was made fully LEGAL in our copyright laws. There is no requirement to BUY in the Home Audio Recording Act. People end up doing it anyways because MP3 files act just like ads.

"Thus we have the spectacle of the intellectually bankrupt trying to lecture those they perceive as morally bankrupt."

That's funny.

"and is protected by the Home Audio Recording Act."

Give it up, dumbass. You have no idea of the meaning of AHRA. Another wannabe legal expert. You and awehr should get a motel room.

"I think that the kid just meant that the "bling" that Usher wears on one wrist is equal to the cost of his tuition. Usher is doing well."

Thanks for the clarification.

"You think that the students are all stupid."

I don't think they're stupid. I just think they're a bunch of whiny college brats. It reminds of the so-called hippies of the 60's singing "All You Need Is Love" while waiting on the rent check from mommy and daddy.

"mroop - that was a good article and reminded me of this article, which is also good: http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-2 0041112-000010.html"

Thank you.

This peice looks like an argument against all that the RIAA and MPAA are to me rather than having a go at filesharers and their ethics. I know he is not trying to do that but his scepticism is actually more truth about how the RIAA and MPAA really are evil.

There has been no significant evidence that filesharing disrupts the music industry. There is both evidence of losses and gains. Overall its the convenience of sharing files that fuels a person's tendency to share. But most people, I believe (who are not boycotting), buy albums from their favorite artists to fuel the industry. Sharing media has become too convenient and it is ridiculous to expect people not to share. There is an argument that people own their files and can duplicate them at will with the intent to share.

"It reminds of the so-called hippies of the 60's singing "All You Need Is Love" while waiting on the rent check from mommy and daddy. "

I found myself agreeing with some of your statements until you got to this one, mroop. You went way, way out into left field for that one.

The 60s was about protesting the war and not being shipped off to be killed. Being in college certainly saved the lives of some who would otherwise have been forced to go.

This entire issue is so trivial in comparison that you have besmirched the stoned, acid-taking hippies. Because when we weren't spending all our cash on drugs, we used to buy a lot of damn music, as both were necessary ingredients to keep that "free love" thing going.

INeedALover, it really doesn't matter what the law is. I was not making a legal point. If you receive something of value from someone, then there is generally an obligation of some kind of reciprocation. Just the simple "golden rule." It doesn't apply to all downloading, but it applies to at least some.

I admit that it is difficult for me, when I have downloaded an album, and I really like some tracks, but it isn't worth purchasing the whole album. How can I compensate the artist. If there was a reasonable way to do it that didn't involve supporting corporations and cartels that I think are harming music in general and artists in particular, the I would want to chip in a dime or a quarter, direct to the artist, for a song. That's probably more than he gets from the standard record contract.

I'm not lecturing anyone, I'm making a general point of abstract principle.

"Clearly, the die has been cast. Whatever conditions that would have created a sense of ethical boundaries on the Internet community have been lost, and it’s too late to create them. Or maybe our scruples are simply superseded by the ease of downloading music, even when facing a slim chance of being caught and paying a heavy price. "

Neither the RIAA nor the MPAA can take the high ground as injured parties so long as they extort money from college students, and sue dead ladies and 12 year old girls, and guys with only five songs in the shared folder.

The RIAA and MPAA, in my opinion, should never been seen as having "clean hands" in any court case in which they are the plaintiffs. They should be excluded from bringing actions to court.

"They should be excluded from bringing actions to court." Not to worry, Code, because as far as I know, they agree with you, with the exception of the Grokster case. They sincerely hope they don't have to take any of their lawsuits all the way to court. And why all the griping about judges here? How many judges had to agree with Fred and the EFF before the RIAA/MPAA bullies had to drag in the Supremes? What judges in particular are we mad at today?

And Sherm, I knew what you meant, and I get mad at 'em, too, quite often.

If you guys are really so mad at the mickey-mouse-college-paper hacks who wrote the article, direct your anger at the source, compose a frothing letter to the editor of the paper and tell the writers why they are idiots.

Bitching about it here is just preaching to the converted.

"I found myself agreeing with some of your statements until you got to this one, mroop. You went way, way out into left field for that one.

The 60s was about protesting the war and not being shipped off to be killed. Being in college certainly saved the lives of some who would otherwise have been forced to go."

I'm feeling a little anti-hippie lately because I just finished reading the Vietnam book "Acceptable Loss - An Infantry Soldier's Perspective" by Kregg P.J. Jorgensen. Protesting the war was certainly a noble activity, but did they have to spit on our boys and call them babykillers when they came back home the Nam? Hell no!

"Why do they always send the poor? Why do they always send the poor?" - System Of A Down

Hey, mroop--(and I quote) get over it.
They always send the poor..even today. Just much more devious about how they seduce them, and much less devious about creating more of them. Every day in every way, making America stronger. (I feel sick...)

"Usher is walking around with my college tuition on his wrist!”

What in God's name does this mean anyway?

It means this, mroop. The stupid diamond-encusted-platinum-two-pound-watch on his wrist is worth more than the tuition of the student for one year. Meaning that Usher doesn't need his money.. OK, this IS total BS, and we know it, but the positive here is maybe they will convince kids to get offa the RIAA-crack-music pipe and turn to indie. Who wants that stupid-ass watch anyway?!!

Sorry about the previous post.. I should read more carefully, mroop. And ShadowMom.. you GO GIRL!! Seems poor folks and folks of color are always available to carry out the dirty work of the oligarcy!! Even today, I would say.. draft Jenna Bush first. As an avid protester of any unjust, unnecessary agression against "other" kind of people (which the "majority" always seems to have the wisdom to label correctly) I say to you, mroop, that to respect our soldiers, which I have had in my family as well, is to reserve our strength and might for our own protection ONLY... not to traipse around the planet looking for a fight set up by overinflated political wusses.. it should be our last resort, not our first choice, don't you think??
But I agree with mroop's premise that college folks these days don't seem to have that ole skeptcism of the "athorities" that existed then.. but, mark my words, the second the draft reinstates, all that will change.... won't it?!

This article is quite neutral -- at least, I found nothing to be angry with. Is that how P2P users' attitudes, as portrayed therein, that anger people?

I'd have to say, while copyright is one of the biggest mistakes that history did make, my impressions about the file sharing community have been consistent with what is portrayed in this article -- most pirates do seem to have the mentality of thieves ("I'm doing it, if you want to benefit by it you are welcome, but don't tell anyone"). If one truly believed that piracy (okay, some here may be allergic to this term, so -- information sharing) is right, and copyrights and patents are wrong, one would indulge in it willingly and openly -- as an act of civil disobedience, Martin Luther King's way. However, it has been my impression (perhaps wrong impression) that it is as if P2P users know that what they are doing is wrong, but still do it -- an attitude typical of a criminal. Does that mean that the scare tactics employed by RIAA and MPAA are working?

Jazzmary-- I try to keep an eye on them. My daughter just had a "UN Discussion" at school (she had to represent Iraq) and the topic was, "Why do we value one person's life more than another's?" Do I think Jenna's life is more important than my daughter's? Hell, no. They're trying to create two social & economic classes instead of three--the haves and the have-nots. And guess who will be going to war?

Pa3Pyx--you're making a moral judgment when you say it's "wrong." Is it illegal? Maybe...if it ever gets to court, then we'll know. But I don't think most people who use P2P believe it is "wrong."
They're two different things. And it's been pointed out before--not many of us have the resources to take on a monster the size of the RIAA/MPAA in court. That's their whole point in suing.

("I'm doing it, if you want to benefit by it you are welcome, but don't tell anyone"). Pa3PyX.. in my neighborhood, that is a perfect analysis of the thinking of bankers and insurance executives... and cops, and news anchors, and pimps, etc..etc..

"if P2P users know that what they are doing is wrong, but still do it -- an attitude typical of a criminal"
You mean like Cary Sue Sherman suing 12 yr. old girls, dead women, grandparents who don't use P2P and old ladies who are on Macs and don't even have P2P software installed, and they keep making these wrongheaded actions...is that what you mean...i.e., that they are CRIMINALS?

I agree,...the RIAA and the MPAA are acting like criminals...extorting money using the Hobbs definition of extortion...great point Pa3PyX...they are criminal copyright cartel folks..including MPAA and RIAA!

My question is:

How many times do I hafta buy the Beatles white album....Vinyl,8 track, cd....
what next? I already paid out the wazoo....

ShadowMom: I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to by "it"; sorry I was not making myself clear, so let me explain this in some more detail. If you are referring to using P2P, no, I do not claim it is wrong. I'm claiming that the idea of copyright and patenting is inherently wrong; information is there to be shared, and once a piece of information goes public, it is public domain. Restricting its use is equivalent to restricting freedom of speech. Now I know there will be people who will start pulling all kinds blurry distinctions out of a hat and say that using speech to insult people is a crime, and in the end will equate piracy and stealing -- been there, heard that, this analogy is off because of the natures of the subjects compared. From my point of view, RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and others simply exploit the current laws (DMCA etc) that should not have been there in the first place -- and indeed promote new laws for their fallacious cause -- and indeed, act on the grounds of these laws to extort money and ruin the lives of people. CodeWarrior: I agree with you her, in that these organizations are acting like criminals, even though the law is on their side. So this is what you are angry with? Sorry, I misunderstood you.

But of course legal does not mean right, just as illegal does not mean wrong. Which brings us to the next point.

ShadowMom: Now if you are saying that most P2P users do not believe _copyright_ to be wrong, then this is exactly what I'm saying. It is well known that most of the material distributed on P2P networks is copyrighted, and is distributed there without the authors' permissions. If a P2P user indulging in sharing copyrighted material does not believe copyright laws to be wrong, then it follows they believe their own actions to be wrong, because these actions violate the above law. It's one or the other (now I know there are caveats, such as fair use, which do not apply here). Therefore this user knows their doing to be wrong, but still do it. This is what I mean when I say the attitude most P2P users display is that of criminals -- they do things which they do not believe to be right, but they still do these things. This has been my impression; judging by replies here, people seem to think this impression is wrong and not representative. Which is indeed good news -- I was hoping so, but...

This is where we come to Martin Luther King analogy. Back in 30's - 60's, there was a lot of segregation laws and other kinds of laws in the US supporting racial inequality. Martin Luther King and those who sided with him believed these laws to be wrong, and stood for their own cause -- non-violently, never starting riots, not with force, but with civil disobedience -- simply by doing things that they believed to be right, even though they were against the law. But they did not do these things underground, in secret, in hiding, like most P2P users seem to -- they did these things openly and willingly and made their concerns known. And in the end, the voices were heard, the common sense prevailed, and the segregation laws were abolished. One of the other greatest mistakes that history made was undone.

See, there is a historical precedent here. It is my hope that the same thing will eventually happen with copyright and patent laws. But if most people who use P2P for copyrighted material do not believe copyright to be wrong, why do we constantly see attitude like "If I was downloading music from Jay-Z and I saw he was having a rough year then I’d feel bad, but most of the artists I download I don’t see doing badly", or "I’d like to see more people get punished for it"? It is very probable that I'm misinterpreting the words here, but if people who indulged in P2P believed copyright to be wrong, one would instead expect something along the lines of "I'm going to do it no matter what results, because I believe my cause to be right -- If I am to become a victim, I will be a martyr for my cause" -- at least from those who have not yet been sued. Why do we not see this kind of attitude? I hope it is only because things like file sharing are entertainment and are currently relatively unimportant in people's lives -- most people would not sacrifice their peace, their family's well-being, indeed their life for a relatively insignificant cause like this one. But this is gaining ground, and information dependence is increasing -- and at the same time, RIAA and others are tightening the screws. I believe sooner or later the major collision of interests is inevitable -- let us hope that when this happens, the common sense prevails again.

Yet more people here in the United States disagree than agree with this line of thinking, no matter who I ask -- even in my circle, and in my circle, people are relatively high-tech. It is also sad to see that other cuntries which were much more liberal and lenient with regard to copyright laws (such as China, as already mentioned here, or Ukraine, or Russia, where I am from) are starting to crack under the US pressure and adopt DMCA's of their own. Not only did US make the great mistake first, but it also tempts other to do the same. Sigh...

"How many times do I hafta buy the Beatles white album....Vinyl,8 track, cd....
what next? I already paid out the wazoo...."

You didn't mention casette tape -- I certainly hope you helped out the cartel by purchasing that medium as well.
(Just kidding!)

"Information dependence is increasing -- and at the same time, RIAA and others are tightening the screws."

Certainly true, and that's the main reason we see the push on a global level to enforce rules for (cringe!) "intellectual property" rights. People must be controlled, ya know; that's very essential. (Sigh.)

Pa3Pyx--I agree with you! Especially about the government's push to force our "intellectual property" laws on other nations, a push fueled by money from the entertainment industry. NAFTA, CAFTA, WIPO, all need to be revised (or maybe just plain tossed out). But money speaks and government listens.

And I do believe you can only push the American people so far--and then they will be pushing back. There are protests in this country almost every day about one thing or the other, and I expect they will get larger, more frequent, and much louder. Whether the MSM will cover it is another question.

I will say one more thing about downloading music specifically. From a personal standpoint, I don't think there's a difference between downloading a song on the computer and taping one off the radio--or taping a show on television to watch later. And those are both legal. What has the RIAA in fits is that the quality is better. They don't seem to understand a copy is a copy--not an original. It will never be the original. Until they began suing their own customers, I actually bought more CDs than I ever had before--because I heard more artists and songs than I ever heard before. But you can't force people to buy something they don't want. And I no longer want their music.

Hats off to ShadowMom!