Slashdot Mirror
Napster Judge Groks Filename Variation
A reader writes: "Apparently the Napster Judge has thrown her hands up on the case. Napster has argued, successfully, that they cannot keep up with all the file name variations (and there's an interesting argument for the "Fab Four")."
Dude, your connection will get dropped faster than VA Linux's stock price.
As for artists making a living, I think it's more important for them to hang onto commercial copyright (and get good contracts -- contracts that don't make them pay for the "privilege" of surrendering exclusive control of their recordings and copyrights to the record company) than to control non-commercial copying. There will always be a lot of fans who want to buy official product if it's available, and hasn't been bollixed up with watermarks and copy protection.
The bigger issue is that computer technology has called into question the value that the record companies add, and the degree to which they should be allowed to reap the benefits of the copyright incentive the PUBLIC provides to the ARTIST. Instead of answering this question by providing more value to citizens, customers, and artists, the record industry has gone all out to maintain and increase their control at others' expense. What they don't realize is that their own actions have placed them into a tar pit, and the more they lash out against the rest of us in their struggles, the deeper they will sink into the tar pit. With their back catalogs, I doubt that they'll go bankrupt, but I'm certain there will be a heavy financial price to pay just when they least expect it.
And it's so easy to avoid! All they need to do is to reevaluate their business from the perspective of "what do artists, customers, and the public need, and how can we make a profit serving them on their terms?". I could do that, and I'm not even a lawyer or a musician! Instead, they react to the strategic inflection point caused by new technology with an apparent attitude of "What rose-colored view of reality would make us most comfortable, and fit in with the way we like to do things? How can we force people to conform?"
Please follow up with more info, GemFire. I'd appreciate seeing your original letter.
So, if I, tonight, crank out some electronic-oid bit of dance music, and decide to put it in the public domain, I cannot use Napster to distribute it, because I haven't first told them it was ok? I think not.
The RIAA is required to tell Napster what to remove, according to the appeals court ruling. Until they can do that, Napster is doing what is required of them, legally. Morally? That's another question altogether, and one our court system is not capable of answering.
The best way to rebel sometimes is to *bend*. Witness Felten - he very gracefully accepted the fact that the RIAA was trying to silence him, did 'exactly what he was told to do' by them, and gave a worse black eye to the RIAA by doing so (in the form of more press, more negative publicity, etc.)
As far as napster goes, well, they've pretty much shot holes in the RIAA's position by saying to the judge 'you know... this whole filename thing isn't going to work', and then *trying their best* to implement the courts order.
And you know what? the whole filename thing DIDN'T work. They were VINDICATED. That gains them credibility in the judge's eyes.
Sometimes the best thing to do is bend. Most times, in fact. The alternative would have been them to go out in a 'blaze of glory'.
Ed
It would be real nice if you and others that get stupid replies from elected officials would publicly post them on a website somewhere. Or even the non-stupid replies - That would help people vote next time.
Back in the days of Electronic Bulletin Board Systems, many BBS softwares tried to "police" the language of the users, to make sure that words like Fuck, Shit, and all of that list of the famous 7 words and their cousins were not able to be posted...and many ways were found to get around this...so much so that they eventually gave up. Someone should have asked a computer historian if trying to block specific words would everwork...and saved a lot of time, money and frustration in this case.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned regarding this whole filtering mess is that Napster is using some very broad rules for filtering songs. For example, any file that has the word 'Four' in it's name is being filtered. That would include track four of every CD listed... I guess this was an attempt to deal with the Beatles/Fab Four issue. Among other things, this aggressive filtering is severely affecting my room-mates ability to distribute his own music on Napster.
There are a lot of pages of instructions for what to do if you want to add a song to the filtered list, but for some reason Napster supplies NO information on what to do if a song that you hold a valid copyright on is being blocked for no reason.
Should this type of thing be brought to the attention of the judge?
It's not a bug, it's a feature...
Yes. So is driving faster than 65. What's your point?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
The point is that it's none of my business what you're drinking in the privacy of your apartment, but it is most certainly my business what you are drinking while you're sharing the road with me. The "right to privacy" does not include the right to endanger others (the usual analogy is, your right to swing your arms around stops where my nose starts)
-- Michael Chermside
It would be nice if Napster (the corporation) had a way to gracefully disappear, without giving the record companies total victory. From what I've seen, napster (the application) is essentially useless at this point, and its too late for anything to be done about it. They have totally alienated the user base that they were relying on to support them through their trial, while at the same time continuing to alienate the record companies, leaving them floating without any real purpose.
As Jello Biafra said at Hope 2000.. (paraphrased) "Napster is cool now and all, but will you like them as much when they're the next Disney?"
The rebelious attitude is gone.. the music is gone.. it is time for napster to be gone.
This is a perfect example of why Napster is not the guilty party here. It's the individual people, those sharing the music, that are infringing. Think about it for a moment: The users of Napster are using (admitidly simple) encryption mechanisms to trade songs without getting caught. Now the recording industry is asking the government to force Napster to find a way to defeat that mechanism. Even putting aside the possibilities of tying in the DMCA, this clearly shows that the sharing of songs is beyond the control of Napster, and forcing them to cease would be an unreasonable burden on what can only be called a bystander.
Of course, the RIAA will never, en masse, go after the users of the songs. Those are the people who buy their music.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
Exactly which taxpayer dollars are being spent here?
The judge doesn't work for free, you know. Nor was the courtroom constructed without cost. The staff who work behind the scenes filing and typing for the judge (and who do 99 % of the work, I'm sure) also need to be payed.
In short, unless someone is required to pay the court costs, the U.S. taxpayer will be footing the bill for the trial.
We tried voting her out, but lost something like 40-60. The op-ed columns were surprisingly uniform in their labeling of Tom Campbell as someone who "doesn't quite have what it takes" to make it in the Senate, and even more consistent in portraying her prolific selling-out as "effectiveness" and "getting things done". You can search for some of the juicy tidbits at Media Awareness Project. Here's just one sorry example, with glowing references to the Maxxam Headwaters buyout.
Slashdot readers ought to vote against her based solely on her continuing support of the CDA. Californians ought to vote her out simply because she's as corrupt as they come. 5.5 more years...
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
I wish Diane Feinstein would have the gumption to speak out this blatant waste of resources that will at best produce an absurd (and freedom-crushing) precedent.
Well, I'm not a California resident, but, it is my understanding that Feinstein is so secure in hir incumbency that she refuses to debate during election season. Californians need to vote her sorry arse out of office.
Judge Patel has already demonstrated that she' perfectly willing to just shut Napster down altogether, and if they can't comply with her order to filter the upshot will most likely be an order to go out of business when the trial's finished.
Sure, it gets us a few more months (or years, if there's a long appeals process), but overall I think this is a case of winning a battle that will probably mean losing the war.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Keep in mind, that this is the same judge who ruled that source code is speech (within the first-amendment definition) in the Bernstein case.
If she'd heard the DeCSS case, we'd all be singing her praises, I expect.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Well, the RIAA has a valid point. They have told Napster what songs are copyrighted. From a philisophical and probably legal standpoint, the titles and artists are the defining information, and filenames, encoding format, etc. are just "technical details."
The problem is much more fundamental, and really strikes at the heart of human/computer interaction: computers and humans assign significance to data in totally different ways. What we look at as unimportant details are the only things that matter to the computer. Nearly every attempt to close that gap on anything but the most tightly defined problem has failed miserably.
In short, it is not technically possible for Napster to comply with the ruling. What this means from a legal perspective is unclear to me.
Make a mental list of all the proper names, rarely used words, and phrasing in most songs and you'll see how easily software can be confused by the whole mess.
Song length wouldnt work too well either as you can just add a silent second or two to your already rot-13'd song name and ID3 tag.
If you really want to punish someone, let them download songs by their real name and just have the client replace the mp3 data with a short speech on a loop for the exact length and data of the song. After 20 or so "You have downloaded a copywritten song" tracks you won't go near Napster again.
Also, I'm curious to know which independant labels want Napster distributing their songs.
Has anyone considered the possibility of making it technically possible but _illegal_ for Napster to comply with the ruling?
1. Develop some fancy filtering technique which manages to pick up a particular style of munging of mp3 files.
2. Submit a patent for the filtering technique.
3. Start munging mp3 files that way (legal ones for best comic effect) and putting them on Napster.
Napster can't filter them effectively, although a way exists, thanks to the ludicrous nature of software patents.
Any comments? Why wouldn't this work?
this article today which says that Napster is dramatically stepping up its filters, to the point of major over-filtering (ie, false positives).
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Dave: "Download the Metallica song, Nap"
NAP9000: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
Dave: "then try Meetalika, dude...."
NAP9000: "That would be illegal Dave according to my RIAA-clipperchip, by the way, there seems to be something wrong with the main antenna, you will have to go on a spacewalk to fix it."
Dave: "Ok, man."
[dave slips into a spacesuit and then through the airlock]
NAP2000: "Lt. Uruhu, Contact the the RIAA-Borg homeworld, and inform them, I have spun Dave off into space for copyright infringment. They can legally confiscate his assets now. I'm sure Jack Valenti's Preserved Brain will be pleased."
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
So basically any number of possible mechanisms will work to delay the process that the RIAA must undertake when seeking out and identifying specific songs. First, people have been munging filenames quite a bit, but that's really not very convenient for people trying to search for songs with certain words adjacent to eachother, etc (According to this ruling the current filters for word sequences like "Green Day" can be removed).
Instead, we could incorrectly report the length of the file, and even introduce a recognizeable chunk of junk data at the beginning of the mp3 so that the only way to determine whether or not a specific file is infringing on copyright is to download at least up to the point where the junk data ends. Then, have the client alter the file info slightly, if not by altering the Case of the filenames, then by altering the reported length and amount of junk data attached to the beginning of it.
That way if the specific file that was being downloaded is recognized as being infringing it doesn't really matter because that *same* file doesn't exist anymore.
I read this over and over again trying to understand the "yeah right" reaction. Finally, it hit me: you don't accept private ownership of creative property. At all. Wow. With that reasoning RMS does not have the "right" to enforce his GPL - afterall the GPL only carries weight if you grant RMS creative ownership rights.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Ah. Well, "people like me" view intellectual property ownership as perhaps more real than (my) car sitting in (my) driveway, because I have said real property through the excercise of my intellect and creativity. That's the 'basis' - I create, you benefit and pay, I buy things. You steal my car, I can buy another, but you take away my intellectual property rights and you've cut off my "car supply".
I'm a knowledge-worker. I've spent years getting the knowledge I have. It's kinda like the heart surgeon asked to justify the $100,000 fee for open heart surgery. His answer: "operating room, tools, support staff, billable time to operate - $10,000; knowing where to cut - $90,000." Bad analogy, but the point is knowing is worth a lot. If you take my intellectual property without my permission, a good case could be made that you are taking tangible assets from me.
IIRC, In the middle ages the church did not allow craftsmen to sell an item for more than the cost of the materials used in making the item. So, a mahagony dinner table would be cheap! Just the price of the lumber. No allowance for creativity adding value to the slab of wood. The real property is merely the materials, but the artistry and effort that transform the boards into beauty -- that's harder to substantiate. In today's world wealth advances through means of intellect.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Quietly give up.
but for some reason Napster supplies NO information on what to do if a song that you hold a valid copyright on is being blocked for no reason
If you hold the copyright on a sound recording, get your band listed in Napster's legal music registry. Or just sign up with MP3.com and name-drop your music in the chat rooms.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The rebellion is on, napster is just the tip of the mp3 iceberg... and for us Canadians it's not much of a rebellion. Fair use is clearly defined although RIAA Canada would like to tell you otherwise. The fair use laws in Canada have been tested with video tapes and the MPAA lost.
You see in Canada you can copy something a billion times, as long as you do not intend to make a profit. I just don't know if there is going to be a test case, everyone is just too scared to take on the Lawyer rich RIAA.
illenium.net - ultimate sk8 shop online
It'5 3een a hard daze ni6ht.
Need XML expertise? crism consulting
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
If there were no legitimate uses for Napster than it should probably be closed down. However, that's clearly not the case here.
The beauty of pointers in C code is that you don't have to manipulate huge chunks of data; you can simply point to its memory location and move on. The RIAA wants the data to be filtered. But we're all using pointers to the data which we can change at will w/out changing the inherent data. Someone with some grasp of that concept needs to be involved in the ruling. Not that I know the answer, but someone needs to define "copyrighted song." It's obviously not the "name of copyrighted song" nor "some random encoded bits of the copyrighted song", but the "copyrighted song" itself. Ah, the beauty of digitization - changes the whole meaning of what "is."
Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
Years ago, sSs were on EMI. EMI own the rights, quite legitimately, to the material they recorded at the time, and publishing rights too.
But the band were dropped years ago, recently reformed, created thir own label and released an new CD, PirateSpace. Tony James, the 'BosSs' of Sputnik, made it abundantly clearthat the reason they reformed was the unexpected presence of many websites devoted to the band, and has repeatedly credited Napster with rekindling their career.
So, if filenames are to be banned based on a band name, here's another fatal flaw. EMI have every right to ban Napstered copies of "Love Missile F1-11". But they have no rights whatsoever over "Welcome to the 21st Century". And yet, if the filters are looking for the string "Sigue Sigue Sputnik"... Well, they deserve to be sued by Sputnikworld records for restraint of trade, since Napster is a preferred means of promotion by the new label.
And this is far from the only example.
TomV
Step one: go down to the local music store and buy five albums. This will cost you around sixty bucks, definitely within the means of anyone who buys computer equipment. Feel free to adjust the number according to your income. Try to make your selections a diverse group, bands you haven't heard much before but that you think you would like.
Step two: Rip the music from the CDs and store it on your computer in high-quality mp3 format.
Step three: Give the CDs to friends of yours. Have your friends give you the CDs they got. Rip the music and pass the CDs along.
Step four: Listen to all your music. If all goes well you should have a lot of stuff that is new to you. Listen to it and think about what music you like and what it is about that music that makes it good. Talk with your friends about the music. Keep the good albums in the background when you hang out, when you go on long drives, when you party, when you code, and when you want to sit and listen to something cool.
Repeat as necessary. Make sure you listen to bands you've never heard before as well as old favorites. Then if the new ones are good, you can pass them along to people who you know will appreciate them. Buy music, share music, and listen to music.
--
share and enjoy
Am I the only one thats just a little tired of napster?
I agree that Napster isn't exactly a knight in shining armor for the causes of business integrity and IP reform. But we have to take what we're given: the battle for digital music is Napster vs. RIAA, like it or not. Yes, Napster is a greasy outfit, but RIAA is Stalinesque. Given that, I guess I'm pro-Napster, and I'd guess you are too. If Napster is demolished in the courts and legislature, I don't think we can expect, say, Bearshare to trundle up in 2004 and reverse all the precedents set in Napster vs. RIAA.
I'd like to be rootin' for someone else, but Napster and RIAA are the only players on center court.
Who would RIAA sue then? This new service, call it sleepyfellow.com, doesn't trade in music, so RIAA can't go after it for copyright infingement. They could try to nail it under the DMCA like the MPAA did to DeCSS, except that the software isn't decrypting, it's encrypting. In fact, if RIAA tried, they might be liable under the DMCA for breaking sleepyfellow's encryption. Could the RIAA reap what it sows?
RIAA says it can't provide a list due to the problems with changing file names, Napster says Bullshit.
And around we go
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
That is, hands down, the worst Napster analogy I've ever seen.
You may look at Napster as blatant theivery, but the thing is, these people created their music for the purpose as consumption. How did they create their music? By consuming other's works. No matter how much they have used their own lyrics and information, they have created their music using the culture of the individuals whom are living in it. Those individuals have a right to take it back as well.
Restricting the free flow of music is restricting the free flow of culture. That is basically impossible.
Most musicians make enough money from their CD sales to survive in luxury above that of the people purchasing their CDs. Some don't. You can't make a living off of music.
The fact is, anyone with any business experience will save up money to distribute their music via MP3 first, then once people get a taste for it, publish CDs. If you jump straight into CD production, you are being stupid, and deserve to go bankrupt.
I may sound a little crazy, but whether Napster wins or loses may determine if the US is nearing socialism, or is still completely capitalist.
Just my deranged, biased $0.02
---
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of theese?
Can you imagine a MOSIX cluster of these?
No, really. I submitted this article.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
There are several programs available to help users defeat Napster's filters. There are also more file sharing apps around than you can shake a stick at, so if you can't find it on Napster, just try a different one.
I've compiled a list of many alternatives to Napster, as well as many of the recent news stories featured on /.
Get them. Use them. Show the RIAA who really controls the internet
If your California Senators and/or Representatives were in office during 1998, they NEED to be voted OUT. 1998 legislation - the NET act, the DMCA, and the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act - all 3 great gains for corporate America and all 3 great losses for the American Public.
I, too, have written Congressmen. Here's the reply I received to a letter I sent detailing how the copyright laws have gotten beyond any possible Constitutional interpretation.
Dear Ms. Aker:
Thank for contacting me regarding copyright law and its relationship to the United States Constitution. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts.
I believe the United States government should always remain within the boundaries set in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. Regardless of the length of time the copyright laws allow private ownership to the original creators of a piece of material, I do not believe the material is constitutionally required to be surrendered to the government. Should legislation regarding this matter be brought before the House I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me and please do not hesitate to do so in the future. Input such as yours helps me to better serve the Ninth District.
Respectfully, Nathan Deal
This letter clearly shows that a)he has never read the Constitution, b)he hasn't a single clue what he's talking about or c)that he just wants to say something he thinks might placate me.
I especially liked the part where he says private ownership belongs to the creators - yeah right. And then there's where he seems to think that these works are surrendered to the Government? Excuse me, since when is the Public Domain the government. Expiration of copyright is a limitation on monopoly and YES it is written plain and clear in the Constitution.
When I vote, I simply vote out all of the incumbents, no matter what party they are. If they'd been doing their job we wouldn't be having these problems. The only differences between Napster and the radio is that you can choose what you hear with Napster software and Napster doesn't pay ASCAP or BMI. To the enduser, the latter is immaterial. If recording is legal, recording is legal and several landmark cases have declared that recording is legal. Analog vs Digital isn't the issue at all.
Check out my website - http://www.limitingcopyright.com
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
Technological incompetence and ignorance in our judicial system is scary. Those making the rules don't understand the nature of the game, and when that happens, you get things like the DMCA. Lord knows we don't need another piece of legislation like that disaster...
-- Chris
-- Chris
$email=~s/[^a-zA-Z0-9@.]//g;
I can't wait till my ISP contacts me saying "The RIAA wants us to shut you down because you run a Freenet server" my response will be "Um - ok, whats their beef? Oh copyrighted music? Prove that data lives on my server! What? Its encrypted? Wow. Do I have the keys? Maybe - maybe not. I have no idea. Oh yeah - thats right - you aren't liable for criminal traffic going through your network either if you can't identify it? Well neither can I." Click.
Bring it on!
--
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
"In the state of Florida, driver's licenses say "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law". And supposedly, your signature on your driver's license is what seals the deal. I wonder if you can take the fifth on such things. Like the Miranda laws."
:)
I guess getting a driver's license to drive on public roads that you pay for entails agreeing to an "EULA"
No activity that requires getting a license from the government is free. Look at over-the-air broadcasting for an example.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"You are guilty until proved innocent when pulled over for alleged DWI. Refusing the blood/breath/urine/sobriety test == automatic guilt, arrest, and DWI conviction.
Perhaps someone could how this is legally permitted?"
Constitutionally, it isn't... But, the sheep populace has accepted the premise that driving on PUBLICALLY FINANCED roads is a "priviledge" not a RIGHT, has allowed a much lower burden of proof to be enacted into law. Now you know why a Republic (rule of law) is superior to a "Democracy" (where the government acts to enact the wishes of a sheep population).
Basically, since 1933, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been meaningless. How convienient, as they are the MOST restrictive on the power of government...
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
The burden of proof MUST always be on the accuser, and it IS incumbent on the RIAA to tell Napster WHAT to ban!
To do otherwise is to turn the USA into a country where you are guilty and liable until YOU prove you are innocent. That is tyranny.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
The AHRA says that individuals trading copies is exempt from copyright law, as part of fair use. Napster merely facilitates this behavior. At no time is any copyrighted material on Napster's servers. Why should they be punished?
Am I the only one thats just a little tired of napster?
I stopped caring the day they became a company and took a dollar knowing full well that their company was founded on people trading music they don't have the 'rights' to. I hate IP laws as much as the rest of the /. community, but their business model depended on college age people trading illegal mp3s. Furthermore, they continued to be under the guise of "Oh, we're only here for the independant artists!"
Sure...
How is that different from the RIAA saying "We're fore free speech and openess" when clearly they're not"?
Napster can be good for independant artists, and I've been introduced to many great new sounds with napster, but the vast majority of the use is trading music that artists didn't give permission for. Note, I said 'artist' and not 'RIAA/Record Label'. I don't care what they say I can and can't do with things, I'd rather respect what the person who created it wishes. Unfortunatly the RIAA/Record label doesn't allow them to speak for themselves.
Back on track, I feel that if some greedy VCs and possibly Shawn Fanning himself didn't try to turn Napster into a cash cow, things would be pretty different today. Frankly, Napster and all the people that are involved in the shadyness can be buried in the bottem of the dotcom cesspool for all I care.
Lets get it over with, one way or another, and mote on to new more promising, more open technologies like jrxe, gnutella, freenet, and others.
Answer, you don't. US law has protected sound recordings since the 1908(?) when the copyright act was modified to include copyright on player piano rolls.
The Beatles recordings are all fully in copyright and always have been.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I could imagine the prosecutors
Yes ladies and gentleman of the jury the time has now come where you must decide the facts of the case, and make final judgement on the case. As stated by the RIAA, Napster has continously stolen from the mouths of poor millionaire artists worldwide by providing a peer to peer network solution for sharing music in illegal fashions.
It does not matter that most of the mp3 music stored on Napster was purchased in order to actually make the mp3, nor does it matter that you could also record most of the songs from radio onto cassette tapes. It does not matter that studies have show many Napster users actually purchase billions of dollars in music.
Ladies and gentleman of the jury we provide you with fact based statements and stipulations that don't show much, but the RIAA is footing the bill for this case, and my new golf clubs.
You must come to an agreement, that shows Napster, the thieving service that they are, are no better than someone robbing a bank at gunpoint, or the white collared criminal giving away insider trading information with their boiler room tactics.
It is without reasonable doubt, Napster is the Michael Milken, Charles Manson, O.J. Simpson, Kenneth Kimes, Timothy McVeigh of the computing world. Sure they didn't hurt anybody physically, but Metallica's feeling were hurt, and in pop and media culture attention and money are what counts in society today. DON'T let Metallica and the RIAA go hungry
Ladies and gentleman of the jury I ask you find the defendant GUILTY.
fearsome
360 degrees of Karma
And sue Napster and RIAA if they try to use it. Makes you want to love the DMCA.
Exactly which taxpayer dollars are being spent here? I've been under the impression that it is individual media companies, collectively acting under the name RIAA which are bankrolling the anti-napster side, and of course, napster paying legal fees on their side. Even the operating costs of the courts are covered by the litigants, right? I'm not necessarily calling you out, but if you (or someone more in the know than myself) could break this down in a way that I can explain to others who wouldn't otherwise be giving this case any attention it would be much appreciated.
The state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everybody else. ~F. Bastiat
Dave: "Download the Metallica song, Nap"
NAP9000: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"