Cyber Sleuths vs. Secret Networks

amnfinch writes "I saw this article on BBC news and frankly, I was blown away. Just another example of the relentless campaign to treat file swappers as criminals when their 'crime' is murky at best." Sir Haxalot provides an article on the flip-side: "CNN has a story on 'exclusive' Peer to Peer networks, that require 'knowing the right people and having a wealth of content on your hard disk to get into the clique.'"

Comments

Quoting a P2P "cyber sleuth":

[James A. A. Joyce]

From the BBC story:

"Mark Ishikawa, a former hacker, is the CEO of BayTSP, arguably one of the most recognised and biggest companies working in the business of patrolling the web to unmask violators of copyrighted music.

From his Silicon Valley base he told BBC News Online: "There is no lock that can't be picked and our technology ensures that there is not a rock in the world you can hide under if you are sharing files.""

It's not about whether or not there's a lock to pick, nor how strong it is; it's about the fact that there's about 30 million locks which have to be picked at any one time.
That's why clamping down on P2P is going to be so hard. It's not because of the difficult of catching people - after all, most of the make virtually no effort to cover their tracks even when using centralised services - but the fact that there are simply so many of them. It's like trying to delete every single byte of data on a hard disk - it's not very easy to do at all without completely destroying the disk itself.

Re:Quoting a P2P "cyber sleuth":

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

"There is no lock that can't be picked and our technology ensures that there is not a rock in the world you can hide under if you are sharing files."

Didn't this guy hear about the DMCA? You're not allowed to pick my lock even if all it is is a loosely tied string.

Oh, wait - does the DMCA only apply when it's being used against the little guy by a huge corporation and never the opposite?

uhhh

[nomadic]

when their 'crime' is murky at best.

Actually, it's pretty clear. Distributing copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission is illegal. Nothing murky about it. The sense that I seem to get from slashdot is people really, really want to share files, so they tell themselves there's nothing wrong with it.

Re:uhhh

[ryants]

Distributing copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission is illegal.

... so they tell themselves there's nothing wrong with it.

Legal and illegal != right and wrong.

Re:uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

And there is nothing wrong with it. Copyright is out of control, out of the consumers best intrest and therefore should be ignored.

I hope you never run into anyone who feels the same way about your car, or your life.

Re:uhhh

[JaredOfEuropa]

True, but maybe he meant 'crime' as opposed to 'misdemeanor'. Swapping songs is wrong, but the punishment should fit the crime. Sharing a few songs does not warrant being served with multi-million dollar lawsuits, being treated worse than a drunk driver, or being bullied into handing over your live savings to the RIAA. It's the RIAA's tactics and the way file swappers are treated, that has people up in arms, not the fact that they're going after the swappers in itself.

The RIAA is clearly trying a scare tactic, by making examples out of a few individuals. It's a bit like the old days, when they would cut off the hands of shoplifters (though not quite as bad). Respectable people like you and me may shrug about that, but just you wait until you are singled out for being made into an example... and you don't have to have committed any actual crime; if the RIAA dislikes what you do, you're a viable target. Look at that student with the search engine.

Re:uhhh

[Eyston]

All the RIAA knows is that you downloaded a song. That in itself is not illegal. What if you own that song but it is on a copy-protected CD and you want to be able to play it on your MP3 player? Is that also illegal? Under Fair Use I would think not, but IANAL.

-Eyston

Re:uhhh

[Kenja]

Please try to describe in instance where distributing copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission is 'right'.

Re:uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

One answer: when the copyright should have expired fifty years ago.

It's supposed to be a promotion of the public domain, not an absolute property right.

Re:uhhh

[kaltkalt]

File sharing copyright infringement is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. People shouldn't go to jail for trivial little malum prohibitum offenses. The fun(ny) part is watching the RIAA, etc try to convince the world that file sharing is really malum in se. At that, we all laugh our collective asses off, as that notion is sillier than potsmoking causing toxic overdoses and woldwide terrorism.

The only thing wrong with filesharing is that there is a statute which, by sheer overbreadth, makes it technically illegal. Other than that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with filesharing copyrighted material.

Re:uhhh

[homer_ca]

Music is more than property or possessions. It's culture. The studios take our culture, repackage it, lock it up and sell it back to us. It's not like all this 'intellectual property' was created from the void by some oracle at the studio. We had a public domain with things like folk music, Shakespeare, Greek theater, etc.

To put your analogy in perspective: instruments + composition are to music what groceries + recipes are to cuisine.

'Crime'?

[heir2chaos]

Look, I file swap, but it is still illegal to trade copyrighted material. Everyone that trades files knows this, it is just that they don't care. It's just like speeding, it's illegal, but it doesn't matter until you get caught.

Re:'Crime'?

[geekoid]

"...trade copyrighted material"
no its not. I can freely trade you my copy of "The Hobbit", for your copy of "Jaws".
You can even resell your copy! as a mattter of fact, there is probably a place where you can get copyrighted material for free! its called the Library.

Now if you copy and redistribute computer data, that is probably a different matter, but I don't think its been fully put to the test.

It's a deterent

[binaryDigit]

It's not about whether or not there's a lock to pick, nor how strong it is; it's about the fact that there's about 30 million locks which have to be picked at any one time.

The RIAA doesn't want to prosecute everyone who shares files, they want more people to stop sharing files. The idea is that if for everyone they do go after 10 (or whatever) other people will stop.

The Risk of Private Networks

[KrispyKringle]

I don't see why the RIAA or other copyright holders would be all that concerned about private sharing networks. Security, even in regards to copyrights, is a balance between how expensive the system is and how expensive an intrusion is.

A private network can never have the volume of sharing, and hence harm to the copyright holders, that the big public networks like Kazaa have. And the cost of tracking them down is prohibitive. So I don't see this as something the RIAA needs to get worked up over any time soon. "Private" sharing, in some form or another, has been going on for decades. Analog tapes and software piracy before the days of the Internet are just two examples of tacitly-accepted piracy which was simply too low-volume to be an issue.

Now, if something like Freenet were to provide fully anonymous, public sharing with the ease-of use and pervasiveness of Kazaa, I think the RIAA would be scared.

Re:The Risk of Private Networks

[garcia]

Now, if something like Freenet were to provide fully anonymous, public sharing with the ease-of use and pervasiveness of Kazaa, I think the RIAA would be scared.

Duh, that's why they are publically saying it is hard to use in every article they can. They want the public to be afraid to even try it.

They know that us geeks don't care, but they know that the public only believes what they are fed.

If Joe Blow 13 year old (clueless) hears that Freenet is hard to use over and over, he is less likely to try it.

Re:The Risk of Private Networks

[Kjella]

A private network can never have the volume of sharing, and hence harm to the copyright holders, that the big public networks like Kazaa have. And the cost of tracking them down is prohibitive. So I don't see this as something the RIAA needs to get worked up over any time soon. "Private" sharing, in some form or another, has been going on for decades. Analog tapes and software piracy before the days of the Internet are just two examples of tacitly-accepted piracy which was simply too low-volume to be an issue.

However, it is also true that copying in the past often involved inferior products (cassette recordings, "ripped" CDs, etc.) But now, with CD images and things like FLAC and decent bandwidth, people are getting *exactly* the same product (or could if they weren't happy with 128k mp3s...). Which among other things means that stuff can pass from public to private networks and back, with no loss of quality.

Private networks are a "last-mile" endstage to what the public networks started, and that's how it's been as long as I can remember. I remember one of the first uses of cd burners were that the three of us each downloaded mp3s over modems (public) then swapped CDs (private). Now it's all Internet, but it's still the same. One finds it and shares it with his friends.

Assuming Freenet gets its act together, I imagine that'll be much the same. One gets it, and sends it directly to the rest at full speed (encrypted if Echelon wants to try reading it). Not that I imply that any of what we're sharing is illegal ;).

Kjella

Enough with the editorializing

[TrollBridge]

"...when their 'crime' is murky at best."

I really wish article submitters would stick with the facts and stop injecting their opinions into the stories they are submitting. Statements such as that only makes one sound like a zealot (granted, though, there are plenty of people who agree with it).

This quote is very telling

[Anonymous Coward]

As well as making money, Mr Ishikawa's vision for BayTSP is to become a hi-tech version of Pinkerton, the legendary detective agency that protected presidents like Abraham Lincoln and hunted outlaws like Jesse James.

The Pinkertons did a great job protecting Lincoln, except for the assassination part and their hunt for Jesse James was a success only in that it didn't result in a capture.

Underground

[ispinstr]

Trading is just going to move underground. If you have a smaller trading group with enough suppliers of content, there is no need to share with everybody in the world. A virtual, private P2P will be tough to track down. This is not really a bad thing. It will cut down on the trading of files by most people since suppliers are hard to find. It will go back to trading between friends which has been around for decades now but now it will be digital sharing rather than analog.

CNN story

[harmonica]

"You'll know they're talking, but you won't know what they're saying. It's quite impossible to crack the algorithms," said Lowrey, whose company, Endeavors Technology, is designing a file-sharing system for corporate clients.

Actually, you don't even know they're talking. A program can send small encrypted blocks regardless of whether the user actually sent a message. If nothing is to be exchanged some no-op message can be transferred which is as large as a normal encrypted message block. Don't let the attacker know more than necessary.

As for the elitist country-club type of sharing cliques - those always existed. Whether they are using private IRC channels, FTP or some newer p2p system like DC, that's not much of a difference. Of course release groups don't let anybody join, to name one example.

The problem with private circles - they can always be infiltrated by 'traitors'. It's not a technical problem anymore once a person feels threatened enough to cooperate with the police.

Re:Copyright law

[JaredOfEuropa]

"Copyright exists to provide incentives to push works into the public domain, not to keep them out of it."

Copyrights exist to provide an incentive to push works into the public domain, by providing a means for the publisher to make money off the published work. Sharing files with friends deprives him of that income. I don't see how sharing files with friends is 'clearly not immoral' (though one could argue that it isn't).

Deterrence is Ineffective & Farcical

[FreeUser]

The RIAA doesn't want to prosecute everyone who shares files, they want more people to stop sharing files. The idea is that if for everyone they do go after 10 (or whatever) other people will stop.

The idea is wrong, both ethically and practically. Ethically it is absolutely heinous to make some people pay an exaggerated price in order to frighten others. Indeed it could be argued that it is unconstitutional (14th amendment) to go around destroying some lives in order to 'communicate' a point to others (some are getting very, very harsh treatment, while others are being left alone). Practically, deterrence has been shown not to work, as we see every day with speeding and the woefully ineffectual and counterproductive War on Drugs(tm, Reagan & Daddy Bush). Indeed, deterrence of such crimes is only marginally effective at best, and more often ineffective altogether, particularly with teens, whose notorious "it will never happen to me" attitude is more or less hardwired into their biology and often remains intact well into adulthood. The entire youthful 'immortality syndrome' conspires against any such efforts at deterrence at several levels, something the RIAA and other cartels seem to be unable to grasp (talk about not knowing your market, or your customers).

A teenager sees a few thousand people get busted, out of several million, and (virtually every one) rightly concludes that they'll never be prosecuted. Indeed, any one filesharer is far more likely to be killed in a car accident than to be brought to trial by the cartels, and we've seen what a deterrence death by physical mutiliation resulting from a high speed automobile impact has on teen driving ... i.e. none whatsoever.

Re:Deterrence is Ineffective & Farcical

[DNS-and-BIND]

Good thing that 'nuclear deterrence' thing didn't work. Otherwise there might have been a shooting war between the U.S. and Soviet Union.

Re:Deterrence is Ineffective & Farcical

[saiya]

Stealing music is shoplifting.
Making unauthorized digital copies of music is copyright infringement. It is not theft, and it certainly is not piracy.

Re:Deterrence is Ineffective & Farcical

[drsmithy]

Punishment for a crime is intended to deter others from committing that crime.

No, it's intended to either gain reparations or isolate the offender from society.

The whole principle of "deterrence via punishment" is broken (and immoral). If laws are just, the majority of people will follow them (and the people that don't, wouldn't anyway). Not to mention the vast historical record demonstrating that it doesn't work.

Stealing music is the equivalent of shoplifting.

Bollocks. They're not even remotely similar crimes (legally *or* morally).

Deterrence has in fact been shown to work as a general principle of the justice system [...]

It has ? Where ? History is replete with examples of people who broke unjust, immoral and unethical laws regardless of the punishment. So is modern society, for that matter (P2P being just one of many).

Indeed, about the only way to make punishment a somewhat effective deterrent is to make the punishment so ridiculously out of scale with the crime that the consequences*probability equation is affected (and even then, it doesn't work for long - particularly in a modern democratic-style society - as there is significant social backlash).

If you think people don't break the law because they're afraid of being punished and similarly, if you believe the principle of deterrence via punishment is the philosophy behind modern justice systems, then you have my deepest sympathies. I wouldn't want to live in your neighbourhood.

Re:Deterrence is Ineffective & Farcical

[rnd()]

I think our major point of disagreement has to do with property rights. Whistling or singing a song is fundamentally different than creating an exact digital replica of the original master and then willfully distributing it to thousands of freeloaders.

I believe that property rights are essential to pure capitalism. Clearly, we do not experience pure capitalism, but that is no reason to give up on it and subscribe to a collectivist notion of fileswappers as modern-day Robin Hoods merrily redistributing intellectual property to society's victims.

Property rights are crucial to Capitalism because they form the basis for much of our individual freedom. Contrast land ownership with mere occupancy as was the case during medieval surfdom. When you own land you have an undisputable right to occupy that land and to do with it as you choose, with some minor limitations known in the modern world as zoning.

When you engage in the capitalist enterprise of production, you create a product. That product is your exclusive property, and you may do with it as you see fit. If you build a bird house, you may sell it to the neighbors for $50 if they are willing to pay for it.

The digital age has opened up a whole new realm of production and reproduction. While in the above example you would have to build birdhouse after birdhouse, you can now write a song or a computer program, and instead of worrying about how you will make enough to sell to everyone who might wish to buy one, you have the luxury of being able to dedicate your efforts to the first copy, knowing that as soon as it is done you can effortlessly produce more copies as you see fit (or as demand dictates).

If someone comes along and steals your master copy, then that person deprives you of your just rewards for your initial effort. If that person gives away copies of your software for free against your will, he/she deprives you of the ability to profit from your ingenuity. Just because someone can copy your work does not make it right to copy it.

So, property (intellectual and physical) rights are critical to successful capitalism because they protect the outcome of production, and in capitalism production is the way that individuals express their freedom.

The Robin Hood who steals the product of one individual's freedom diminishes the creator's freedom by limiting the ways in which the creator may use it to benefit himself.

Thus, if you believe that (pure) capitalism is a system that maximizes individual freedom, then theft or unauthorized copying and distribution of the product of that freedom dilutes and diminishes the freedom of the creator and is therefore counter to the ends of Capitalism.

Re:Deterrence is Ineffective & Farcical

[Alsee]

[CDs] so damned expensive
Who are you to decide.

(A) The RIAA was found to have been illegally price fixing by the legal system. And it *is* their place to decide that.
(B) It doesn't matter either way. It has absoltely nothing to do with whether or not copyright infringment is "theft".

That is rubbish. Who are you to decide. That's like me breaking into your house

That's rubbish. Breaking into a house is a crime - a completely unrelated crime. You may as well have compared copyright infringement to theft by saying it's like murdering someone and swiping their wallet.

and stealing something with dust on it and claiming innocence because "you would never have used it anyway".

Again you are relying on a non-existant case of taking someone's property. In copyright infringement nothing is taken. It has absolutely nothing in common with theft. You might as well try to argue that slander is theft.

-

BBC Sponsored Ad

[Mikeface]

The a$$h0le who runs the 'company' is just making inflammatory comments in an article that amounts to free advertising for him and his cronies. Frankly, the idea of being snooped on, just because I'm sharing files that may or may not be copyrighted, is yet another blow for our civil liberties. They seem to be dropping like flies these days...

in response to the most common of comments.

[Suppafly]

Copyrights exist to provide an incentive to push works into the public domain, by providing a means for the publisher to make money off the published work. Sharing files with friends deprives him of that income. I don't see how sharing files with friends is 'clearly not immoral' (though one could argue that it isn't).


One could argue that since copyright is effectively broken (ie: it doesn't push anything into the public domain due to the fact that its been constantly extended every few years for the last hundred years) that there is no obligation for the populus to obey copyright laws as they gain no benefit.

Social contracts only work if both sides hold up their end of the bargain, and in this case, the RIAA and associated industries have failed to do so. Once they start releasing material into the public domain after a relatively short amount of time, I (and I imagine many others) will start rewarding them by paying for some of the material they have copyright on.

If P2P dies

[LordOfYourPants]

I'll probably just shy away from buying new CDs and DVDs in general. That's not to say I will go on a pirating rampage, but I'll stick to free and currently legal alternatives that don't leave me with a sour taste in my mouth.

One thing I do know is that current mainstream media distribution methods are horrible. Let's take a look:

1) Television. Most any content consists of 30% ads. Even paid content can be costly (esp. in the US) b/c if you subscribe to a blanket movie network, you may find a competing one gets exclusive access to a certain studio's movies.

2) Radio. I live in a city with a population in the millions. I am into electronic music and have a very hard time being able to find any at, say, 4 in the afternoon. Even when I do hear it it's during some "live-to-air" session where they're continuously plugging the club's name and how great the atmosphere is. Again, it's interrupted by huge amounts of ads. I know I'm not the only one feeling this way as I've heard the same kind of gripes for different genres.

3) PC Gaming. I can't say how many games I've wanted to try and ended up purchasing due to a lack of a demo that ended up being terrible. It was even worse in the C-64 days, where a games' box art would have screenshots from the arcade rather than the C-64 screenshots. Ever play a demo of The Sims or Sim City 4000? Neither have I.

All that said and done, it's not hugely traumatic, just a shift in lifestyle. Don't buy games unless they have demos or incredible word of mouth, be very stingy with how many times you go to the movies (or at least support directors/writers/studios who aren't just creating the next cash grab movie), try to find an internet radio station playing what you like.

It's not like we're going to war here and lives are at stake. I could just go nuts and warez the universe, but spending even 1ms in jail just b/c I wanted to download Glitter to see if it REALLY WAS that bad doesn't seem worth it to me.

I know someone can reply and say I have my head in the sand, but I think it's more a matter of picking your battles carefully.

Re:My favorite from the article

[hardburn]

Don't forget, too, that the moral-high-ground this company takes is equally applicable to Pinkerton. When a company needed to break up a worker's union meeting around the 1900's, they'd call Pinkerton. The Mafia would have had these guys on their speed-dial, had the technology existed at the time. Founded by the same fellow who started the US Secret Service, who have a such a stellar record of civil rights abuses of their own.

I find the Pinkerton analogy to have a beautiful double-meaning in the context of the above article. I haven't figured out yet if BayTSP intended it that way or not.

Sony is one of the two studios...

[Lyrrad]

Quote from the BBC article:

Two of the industry's top seven movie studios have engaged the sleuthing services of BayTSP, but because of contractual arrangements they can't be named.

A snapshot of illegal movie downloads by BayTSP's chief technology officer Evelyn Espinosa was revealing.

"This is just over a few hours and I have almost 14,000 records with a variety of different titles ranging from Daddy Day Care to Anger Management and Charlie's Angels."

Well, since Daddy Day Care, Anger Management and Charlie's Angels are all Sony films, Sony must be one of their customers.

Trusted P2P network

[galgon]

These secret networks will only work if you know all of the members personally. If the members are letting in people they meet online then you never know if it is a RIAA cop or not.

A solution to this problem would be a trusted network. The network would be setup in such a way that you can only download from people you trust, which should be only people you have met in real life and that you know does not work for the RIAA. You might be saying that this would make for a very small network. True, but each person you trust can allow people they trust into the network. In order to get files from these people or to even search these peoples files you have to go through your trusted friend. That friend would stream a download from a person that they trust to you and no identifying information would go along with it. It would look as though the file was on your trusted friends computer and you downloaded it from there. So you could build a huge network of people based on trust and you dont have to trust anyone that you do not know. The only people who ever come in direct contact with your files are people you know so there is no way of you getting caught. Assuming all the traffic is encrypted and this actually scales to a decent number of members it would be the perfect file sharing program.

Anyone bored enough to build it?

Re:6 degrees of separation

[xtrucial]

This sounds like a promising idea. I'd like to add that you probably don't need to transfer the entire contents of the file you request from your friend's friend. Instead, merely a few bits of authentication could be passed.

That is, your software passes a packet to your friend that says "I want file X". Friend's software says, "I don't have it, but my friend does." Your friend then sends a packet to his friend saying, "My friend, whom I trust, wants this file, can you send it to him?" Fried of friend clicks "Yes" and transfer the file directly. But all the authentication can be in tiny packets of data, encrypted if you like I guess.

How wrong can you be?

[WIAKywbfatw]

What I do in my own house (hard drive) is my business, and I don't want anyone peeking in my windows (ports) without my permission.

Ahhh, the classic "what I do in my own house" defence. Presumably you think that within the privacy of your own home it's OK for you to do anything, regardless of whether society considers it legal or illegal.

By that rationale, you're allowed to rape, torture and murder people without a care in the world as long as you do it at home. After all, it is your house.

Please, stop living in a dreamworld and come back to reality. Just because it's your house it doensn't make you immune from the law - right or wrong - within it.

Re:How wrong can you be?

[peg0cjs]

you're allowed to rape, torture and murder people without a care in the world as long as you do it at home

Don't be so assinine. The point he was making (if I can be so forward as to throw my own interpretation into the fire) is that if he shares his music collection "...in my own house..." he isn't breaking the law. And he's right...it's called fair use. That's a little fundamental right the RIAA has tried to translate into S-T-E-A-L-I-N-G.

Re:How wrong can you be?

[AbbyNormal]

True, but there are certain things that we are entitled to do in our homes with a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. (noticable a certain Texas law that was struck down by the Supreme Court a few weeks ago).

The above example, while not directly related to the "fileswapping" argument, is pertitinent in that if you are doing something illegal, the "Justice" system has a process to follow to prove that you are breaking the law. They do so, so that your rights are protected and to make sure that they are not mistaken. It doesn't always work but it is significantly better than the RIAA breaking down the door and serving you a subpoena without due cause. What if you were swapping your own music? Have they discriminated the difference?

those private networks

[Teunis]

were around before napster ever appeared.
they'll be here long after the RIAA has gone bankrupt offending it's customer base - both public and musicians.

This is just a stupid cry for attention from the newsies.

What's with all the networks inventing new 'crimes' anyways? I thought that was decided by the law creation folks (whatever names they go by) and not the big-bellied lobbyists?
(getting tired of those stupid 'satellite hacking' commercials up here in Canada. Last I checked reverse engineering and monitoring of PUBLIC broadcasts (such as satellite) was for the most part legal in Canada. Not that I care - I don't watch any TV)
Our legal system wouldn't let a monstrosity like the DCMA survive from what I know. Ah well...

Huh? DMCA?

[Avsen]

I'm sure this encryption-breaking is violating the DMCA somewhere (considering how broad it is)

Re:Bluffing?

[Frailty]

I think the RIAA is trying to plug a Titanic sized leak with dish towels. They are not going to be able to stem the flow of files across the web. Rattleing their sabers will not get them very far. I would conclude that we will see a percentage of people dump their connection to the big services, and erase all their swapped files. Then there will be those who sit tight, and weather the storm in rebellion, and then there will be those who find the way around the wall. With all due respect to those corporations who aid the RIAA in there failing crusade, I hope they are being paid well, because this crusade will eventually fail. Personally I don't participate in file sharing, but I can remember the days of buying a tape (ooops did I date myself?) and making copies for my friends. Just like trying to make CD's copy-proof, technological inginuity and rebeliousness will overcome. Technology is progress, and with progress comes winners and losers. Here the winners will eventually be consumers and artists, the losers will be the RIAA and it's allies. Stand clear when those big ones fall.

You may well be not correct.

[Uncle Gropey]

Nah, real musicians would still do it for free then, with free software like Pro Tools and Cakewalk. Then they would promote their music with web pages made with other free tools like Flash MX, DreamWeaver and Photoshop. (Well, all that stuff is free when you have KazaA and Gnutella)

Re:You may well be correct.

[Xabraxas]

Yes. Because for every Britney or Justin there are a hundred Airs or Midnight Oils or Polyphonic Sprees. Kill the pop hits, and you kill the little-knowns.

Not really. Lesser known bands make much more from concerts than record sales. The only point of having a record label is to they can distribute your record to different markets. Bands only make a very small percentage of what you pay for an average CD anyway. Lesser known bands survive by touring relentlessly and if music is what they love, I don't see a problem with them having to make their money that way. I'm not terribley concerned with the welfare of millionaire pop stars.

Re:What exactly are you trading that's 50 yrs old?

[Have Blue]

Please explain the grounds for the inalienable right to suppressed cartoons.