Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sues 261 Major P2P Offenders
circletimessquare writes "Yahoo!/Washington Post is reporting that the RIAA is suing 261 fileswappers whom they consider to be 'major offenders' in illegally trading music online. Remember to visit the EFF when full lawsuit details are released, and see if you're one of the unlucky few." Details of the amnesty program reported last week were also released, with the RIAA announcing it "...would require file sharers to admit in writing that they illegally traded music online and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again."
Since they know they can't stop downloaders, they figure if they make it a point to go after the biggest file sharers people will become paranoid and turn file sharing off. They'll become leachers.
Of course we know what happens to a P2P system with all leachers and no sharers...
"...and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again."
If P2P trading of Copyrighted music is illegal (and we know that it is), why require this? Is it purely a move to allow easy prosecution should they offend again? Or do they think that prosecuting under copyright law might not work in some cases?
Last count 4+ million users on Kazaa. It looks like the RIAA is having an effect. Too bad it's the opposite effect they want. M
A demand to sign a notarized admission of guilt is just _not_ an amnesty (literally -- a forgetting). Is there no limit to the way in which these people will twist words so that they are not saying what they appear to be saying?
I myself just got back into my dorm and seeing this article made me think. Many thousands if not millions of students are going off their dialup/cable/dsl home connections and back to the fat pipes the universities have. As much, I would expect P2P usage to rise again, but how much more with RIAA lawsuits?
----------
Check out my blackbox styles
I'm not sure how justice works in the USA, but here in the UK you are notified if someone initiates legal action against you...
I will not ever pay for an RIAA member label music product until such a time that they end their predatory lawsuits.
Frankly, this won't be a hard promise to keep, since most mainstream music sucks.
PS - The radio is still free, and I have an TV/FM tuner/capture card.
Filing for RIAA amnesty may immunize you from civil litigation, however that affidavit becomes excellent fodder for your prosecution under CRIMINAL statues. Certainly RIAA owns one or two over-eager district attorneys wanting to make a name for themselves.
The you're off to a lovely federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison, or forking up hoards of fines.
261 Major P2P Offenders
So, is that the equivalent of 50 file swappers, downloading really fast?
And next, "ENLARE your subPOENA 4+++ inches! MAXXimus V fomular!"
...
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Even if you won't donate, at least go to the action center and send some angry letters to your senator.
EFF Action Center
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
In short, a levy is paid on blank "audio" media (how they tell the different between blank "data" CDs and blank "audio" CDs is a bit beyond me). This levy gets dispersed to copyright holders in some magic way; in exchange Canadians are expressly allowed private copying, including peer-to-peer file sharing.
Blame Canada.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
I've downloaded gigs and gigs of stuff.
Boo Hoo! The artists are getting ripped off! Can we keep it real for a moment?
The "Artist" doesn't deserve squat.
There. I said it. You can go mod me down, call me Satan, whatever it is you do to those with opinions different than your own. Or you can grit your teeth and read on:
Most "pop" media (music, movies, even books) churned out today is more a product of the producer/publisher than it is a work of art. Except in rare circumstances, the writers, musicians and actors are merely useful brand names, interchangable and of no consequence to the studio's bottom line. Listen to two supposedly different albums with similar production credits. You'll see! Those identical drum beats and background orchestras aren't coincidences. This canned art is inserted as production's way of applying a dose tried-and-true to that brand new artist. "Artists" rarely exert any creative control over the work that will eventually bear their names.
Brittney Spears is hired for her ability to excite teenage boys (and some adult men) and her ability to sell Pepsi, and she is paid handsomely for it. Like most pop "artists" she is barely a part of the product upon which her brand name is stamped, and deserves little, if any, of the proceeds from record sales.
It's really going to take grass roots effort to remove this RIAA threat. It's the only way to really combat a monetarily powerful organization.
Speaking of grassroots, the Dean Campaign should take note of folks distrust of the RIAA. If they promise to do something about the RIAA, then they'll probably wind up with a few thousand more votes than they may have had. If nothing else, bringing this up in a fair political manner about it might put a stop to some of this insanity.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Run fast.
Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go.
Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country.
Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them.
Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia.
Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia where you become a successful black market music distributor.
Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia where you become a successful black market music distributor and retire to the Bahamas.
Run fast dropping bits of cash to distract them as you go running to another country carrying armloads of CDs with MP3s on them to Asia where you become a successful black market music distributor and retire to the Bahamas and thank the RIAA for your new life.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
"...would require file sharers to admit in writing that they illegally traded music online and vow in a legally binding, notarized document, never to do it again."
Offenders must also confess to having been to the proletariat areas and consorted with the prostitutes, or they go to Room 101...
Unfortunately, the output remaining tends not to be compelling, their target audience has a number of other venues for their spending (video games, DVDs, online activities) and the economy goes south.
So which Business school teaches that the best way of addressing these sorts of problems is to spread fear/resentment/anger amongst the audience you are attempting to win back?
And as a side note, if getting the music listened to by potential buyers is such a bad activity, then why to record promotion people give away free singles and CDs at events? Why do companies allow songs to be played on the radio? And if pirating is such a depresser of CD sales, why was one of the most pirated CDs around, The Eminem Show, such a sales success? Could it be that people liked what they heard and were willing to pay for it?
If the Dean campaign tells you that they are going to do something about the RIAA then I can tell you they are lying. The Executive branch does not make laws and it does not try cases based on those laws. It is up to the Legislative branch (your senators and representatives) to change the laws or the Judicial branch to declare them unconstitutional. For that to happen it would have to bounce to the top (Supreme Court) which won't happen because nobody has deep enough pockets to fight it that far.
Yes, the obligatory +5 interesting spiel for donating to the EFF. And, of course, it is +5 Incorrect. Yes, the DMCA allows copyright holders to supboena the names of people from ISP's without bringing a case first, or getting it signed by a real judge, but that doesn't mean that the system of innocent until proven guilty is out the window. These people, if it goes to court, will have the same rights afforded to them as in any other legal case.
There are problems with the DMCA, but can we cut out the FUD please?
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Ah but the catch is that they don't know that you didn't own the CD. 1000 songs is very little when you think about it. You have ~15 songs per CD, so thats about 67 CDs. That not that many.
More over, remember the people being sued are NOT being sued for dowloading but for sharing.
The point is, the people being sued may not have stolen anything at all and not intended to help anyone steal. I have a fairly large CD collection, yet I'd say that at least 20% of my disks have scratches on them. I have copies of those disk that I downloaded of the web. Perfectly legal. I am too lazy to rip my CDs, I have too many CDs and not enough time. I download entire discographies from eMule. Once again, perfectly legal.
Still in the eyes of the RIAA I'm a major pirate because I have a huge MP3 collection of which over 50% is downloaded despite owning the CD.
Thats why I donated to EFF and thats why I urge others to.
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
OK, fine. Then I want my money back for all of the piece-of-shit CD's I purchased because I had no means of sampling the music first due to them prohibiting me from listing before buying.
After that, I want my money back from the illegal price fixing that has gone on for years. Then throw those execs in jail because after all, if you are willing to do the crime you should be willing to do the time.
Additionally I want my money back on crap CD's I bought that had noise added in to the songs to make MP3's I burned useless. I wanted to listen to those in my MP3 player while I excersised but apparently they knew better.
Finally, I want an apology from the execs themselves for all of the misery I have to endure when flipping through the radio channels and I hear the SAME music for the past 5 years with an occasional new tune thrown in for a little spice.
we should be screaming. They can take our money, pull us into court, and wreck our lives witn no proof.
A corporation should never have the ability to do criminal investigations. ever. It totally circumvents the constitution.
These people are running amok, with no checks and balances. All this for possible copyright infringment. Copyright is the will of the people, enacted through congress, perhaps these people had better remember?
distributing music, in and of itself, is not always infringement. Used music stores come to mind.
The real problem for them is that the same music can be redistrbuted over and over again, easily. This is no different then any other advances where information can be spread more easily. There model needs to change, and it will. Unfortunatly lives will be dis-perportionaly destroyed in the process.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
..remeber that these people, however you feel about RIAA and their bussiness, have actually distributed music that they don't have the rights to. If you do the crime; you should be willing to do the time.
That's right. Copyright infringement is the biggest threat to the free world as we know it today. These evil villians must be put away for a long time and/or made to work in toil the rest of their natural lives to repay the enormous damage they have done to the recording industry. For such a heinous crime, it is fitting that their entire lives and even careers should be completely destroyed.
While I'm at it, let me propose some changes to our lovely mandatory sentencing guidelines. How about $10,000 per incident for jaywalking, which is much less serious than copyright infringement ($150,000 per incident). What should be the penalty for smoking in the non somking area?
For all of you who were hoping to get rich through the wonders of P2P file sharing, may I merely point out that it is much more profitable for those who simply rob convenience stores. And the penalties are far less severe.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The executive branch has a lot of influence on the legislative branch, due to the fact that the executive has veto power. (You insert and pass this anti-RIAA bill, and I'll rubber-stamp the next "homeland security" bill you want). If you don't think this kind of stuff happens all the time, you're stupid and/or high.
Another thing to keep in mind, the Executive appoints the members of the Supreme court.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
Where's the crime? This is copyright violation, not a crime. It's a civil offense, not criminal (since even the RIAA hasn't found a way to invoke the criminal parts of the DMCA). Since it's a civil law violoation, you cannot go to jail. It's not piracy (no ships are involved) and not theft. Words have meanings, you know, and legal words have very precise meanings.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
But I'm not entirely sure that bankrupting someone is a reasonable punishment in all instances.
I'm fed up with the pro-infringement people who will make any excuses they can to avoid paying artists for the work they've done, work the artists have done believing that, as the law says, people will pay in some way for using that work. Part of me is glad they're finally getting slapped.
But at the same time, it's undeniable that current copyright law is extreme, and needs to be liberalised with specific rights given to content users; that it is extreme in certain areas (I can't watch a DVD *I* bought under Linux? I can't convert it to a different format? I can't back it up?) unfortunately goes some way to discrediting copyright in others, to the point that people seem to be more willing to engage in the blatent ripping off of artists.
Thousands of dollars in fines per download is also doing nothing to improve the credibility of copyright law. It just promotes an "us vs them" attitude, which is very obvious in the average Slashdotter's blind, uncompromising, irrational, hatred of content producers.
Things have to change.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
And not legal to *distribute those copies*. How difficult is it to understand this concept? If you're using P2P software and making your 3000 MP3 collection freely available to the masses, you are BREAKING THE LAW.
Ah, we're young and innocent, aren't we?
Here are some quotes by judges I've actually witnessed in court:
"Lady, what do you expect here, justice? This isn't about justice, it's about procedure."
"Yes, you can have some time to get a lawyer, but I'm not going to allow him to examine the plaintiff."
And directly relevant to the issue under consideration in a case where defendant requested that the judge dismiss a complaint because plaintiff had offered absolutly no evidence in support:
"It isn't the job of the plaintiff to prove their case. You are the defendant. It's you job to defend yourself."
The judge then denied the defendant's request for the plaintiff to produce financial documents relevant to the case.
Not do you, in practice, have to prove your innocence, but it isn't at all uncommon to be denied the basic rights and tools to do so.
I guess that's why they call it the legal system now, rather than the justice system.
KFG
Thanks for providing me with the best laugh I have had all day. I don't know what exactly possesses people to compare downloaded music to the US war of independence, but it never fails to amuse me. Then again, perhaps IHBT.
Casting this as a fight between rightousness [sic] and corruption, and of escaping a cultural stranglehold, is dubious at best. There are good reasons for copyright law to exist (remember, without copyright law, there can be no GPL). Most downloaders' motivation is to avoid paying for music, not to bring down a music empire. And most of the songs that are downloaded are the same cultural pap that is marketed by the RIAA.
If you're looking to feed your revolutionary tendencies with a bad law having actual, serious consequences, how about the Patriot act? Or the federal budget, which will lead to a trillion dollar increase in the federal debt over the next ten years? Everyone in the world -- American or not -- should be concerned by that, since if the US pulls an Argentina, nobody is safe. By comparison, the fight over file downloading is a childish spat between spoiled children.
The line of reasoning: "the founding fathers rebelled against laws they disagreed with; I am rebelling against laws I disagree with; therefire, my struggle is as noble as theirs" is as absurd as "they laughed at Einstein; they laughed at me; therefore, my ideas are as important as Einstein's".
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
What I dont understand is where all of these pirates are coming from
I havent personally saw anyone with patches over their eyes recently. Or any tall masted ships.
This leads me to believe this is all propaganda to make the average person scared to "surf".
Gibberish.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Repeat after me: Copyright infringment != Stealing
It's only "stealing" when SCO or Microsoft does it.
Yes and no. Did me sharing mp3s aid piracy? Yes.
Was that my intention? No.
Am I responsible for making sure that every person who downloads the song owns a copy? No.
The person who shares the songs is doing so legaly as long as every person who downloads the songs owns a copy.
The person who downloads the songs and has a copy is doing so legaly.
The ONLY person breaking the law is the one dowloading the song and not owning the orignal CD.
I don't see myself a guilty at all, I don't go about burning CDs and giving them out for people, I don't sell the music I download for money. This by the way is a HUGE business in Russia, any CD you want, $5, booklet and everything.
The copyright laws were to prevent the above, not Joe Blow downloading something he heard on the radio to listen to it for 1 day and forget about it. He's no loss to the revenue anyway, he'd have never bought the CD.
The laws are being abused in this case, don't tell me that it's reasonable to charge college kids 100k song. I KNOW people in Russia who make about 160k/year pirating CD/games, thats who the laws were meant for, not for the horribly broke college kids.
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
You're confusing civil and criminal law. In criminal law, yes, you're innocent until proven guilty. It does not work that way in civil law, which is what we are talking about here. All you need to show is a small amount of proof to haul someone into court, and then you only need a "preponderance of the evidence" to win the case.
This is why I object to the RIAA's tactics. I agree wholeheartedly that the ones who are actively sharing files are the ones guilty of copyright infringement under the law, but I disagree with subpoenas issued without a judge's signature.
These people, if it goes to court, will have the same rights afforded to them as in any other legal case.Except the right to a lawyer. Once again, in criminal law, I am guaranteed a lawyer, paid for me by the state if I cannot afford one. Not so in civil law. I have to pay for my own attorney. So I see nothing wrong with the EFF providing funds to help defend people in civil cases, since this helps offset the disparity that exists in the system.
There are problems with the DMCA, but can we cut out the FUD please?Subpoeans without a judge's approval is not FUD, it's a travesty of justice.
Not being able to pay for your own defense in a country that so highly values liberty is not FUD, it's legalized extortion.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Not correct. You can give him a copy. You cannot sell him a copy.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Democrat (n): Someone who thinks the group you belong to is more important than who you are.
Republican (n): Someone who thinks the amount of money you have is more important than who you are.
...is actually pretty simple: Boycott the Music Industry. It's all over-marketed crap anyway - the Madonna/Britney Spears kiss, for example, wasn't an artistic expression, it was a shock statement made to get people to watch the awards program and pay money to RIAA for the music manufactured by their neutered artists.
Stop stealing music. Stop buying music too. Support your local artists. Go to a local nightclub, watch the local bands, and happily pay the cover charge. Buy only CD's the performers sell themselves, and don't steal their music, because you'll be ripping of a performer, and not RIAA.
Your local garage band won't be a technically proficient, but they will be more honest and original, even if they are a cover band playing other peoples' music.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
You're oversimplifying the situation. I'm about 40 and stopped buying music in about 1993. Ironically once alternative music broke into the mainstream, it became impossible to hear new good music.
/. mentioned the Japanese duo Puffy in their signature. I downloaded some songs, fell in love, and bought one of their CDs that night. Here's another example, I hear some Junior Brown in a Spongebob episode, download some of his stuff, and buy his first CD about a week later.
However, I started buying music again after Napster came out. Suddenly, I was exposed to tons of music that never made its way to radio.
Whenever I hear about new music, I download a few samples, and buy what I like. I went from buying no music to about three CDs a month. Here's a great example, someone at
Exactly how does me buying MORE music justify me also paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil fees and being placed in jail with murders?! Either I'm crazy or the law needs to be changed.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
When RIAA writes something Anti-P2P they will know that a great number of the readers will be actual filesharers reacting to that article. That will give them plenty of IPs in their server logs... *That's* the real problem if you happen to be a filesharer. Not the EFF. :)
As a side note it could be wise for you filesharers to check your browser doesn't send a Down-with-the-RIAA-KaZaA-rules-forever site as the referring page while browsing. The site itself could also be a trap done by RIAA to get to know as many filesharers as possible. There have been trap sites of such kind in the past... Be careful out there!
I demand the Cone of Silence!
If the headline of this article read "FSF sues 261 major corporations for GPL violations" I wonder how the comments might differ.
Enforcing copyright is enforcing copyright and if you want the GPL to be enforcable then you better learn to deal with RIAA's copyrights being enforcable too.
Yes, I think international terrorism is an appropriate response to the effort to stop illegal filesharing.
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
Everyone, including myself, has already sounded off their opinions about every facet of this issue. Even this story isn't really "news"; it's simply an official statement of something we knew was inevitable. Rather than revisit old arguments, then, let's try to offer some new thoughts. And in that spirit: If any defendants are reading this, now, here are a few tips, should you go to trial. (I have studied law, and I have served on a jury. If that qualifies this advice, so be it.)
Please don't read my journal
Isn't copyright infringement a criminal activity?
no. it is not.
See, even you bought into the lies that they have spread and now people are starting to understand this.
Copyright Infringement is NOT A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY that is why they are bringing up lawsuits as that is the only way to defend a copyright.
the cops are NOT SUPPOSED to bash down your door kill your cat and trample your petunias and then drag you naked in the street for copyright infringement.. (Contrary to the BSA's belief's)
all they can do is sue you and have a judge tell you to stop and order you to pay a restitution.
Got the idea yet?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Dear RIAA:
I swear under oath that in the last 12 months I have legally purchased at least 5 CD's of your artist's music. I further swear that I will permanently refrain from ever doing it again. I hope this meets with your satisfaction, as treating your customers as thieves can only have one intended result.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
there's no evidence that p2p has had a negative effect on record sales. in fact, sharing your competition's music might increase interest in that very music. just as radio play would. the effect would be to stimulate music sales for your competition and degrade your own music sales.
of course, you also are making the assumption that there's any sort of competition at all. there's plenty to suggest that the members of RIAA are collaborating to gouge the consumer and keep out alternatives.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Breaking the law, breaking an immoral law.
Any law prohibiting the sharing of information between people, IMO, is immoral and MUST be ignored.
Would you say that the Baath party members, abiding by Saddam Husseins laws torturing law breakers were right?
Any law is always subjected to general human values. And any law that limits the right to exchange information is a crime itself.
You may find my opinion radical, and alas it is not yet very generally accepted. But I am convinced that, once people see what the disastrous results of current "intellectual property" laws are, more and more opposition will come and one day we shall return to the situation like the 17th century where the concepts "patent", trade mark, copyright did not or hardly exist.
Without them our civilization rose, building on ideas of others the renaissance and rationalism got us out of the middle ages (when other monopolies on information existed). Now because of such laws we threaten to slide back into a new era of dark ages, where individuals have no rights and no knowledge, and a few entities can corrupt society, control politics (which merely in name is democratic).
We have been brainwashed that todays knowledge economy needs protection of intellectual property to exist and prosper, but have we seen any prove that it won't work without? I do not buy it any longer. I won't rest until all those who want to implement such laws ara safely locked away themselves, for they are the THIEVES themselves, of democracy and human rights.
It seems like the music industry is dying because it has vastly overestimated the value of the product it sells.
When CDs first came out, they were about the coolest way to spend money. There were no DVDs, movies came on cumbersome magnetic tapes which degraded quickly, and the software of the day just wasn't compelling to most people (and also came on cumbersome magnetic media).
The prices for CDs have hardly fallen since.
Today, you can spend $20 on a DVD. Technically, it's also just a piece of plastic, but it carries a couple of hours of data for the eyes as well as the ears. Or you can buy a video game for $35-$50 that lets you actively participate in the entertainment. Being non-linear, a video game could provide anywhere from 0 to thousands of hours of entertainment. Then there is cable TV, where for the price of a couple CDs a month, you get 24-hour access to lots of different crap.
With a CD, you get about an hour worth of music (I've seen some go as low as 40 mintues), and even if you really like all the songs, it only engages your ears. Hence, on average, CDs are less entertaining.
Nor is the CD a convenient format for anything but home use. Keep your CDs in your car, and they inevitably get ruined or stolen. So for your convenience you burn yourself a copy for your car, making it more valuable to you. But the industry isn't simply failing to increase the value of its product, it's trying to interfere with the ripping and burning that could make the content more convenient (and hence more valuable).
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Former presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton each saw most of their circuit court nominees confirmed -- 100 percent, 95 percent, 96 percent and 86 percent, respectively. For George W. Bush, that number is a paltry 53 percent and, unlike his predecessors, he has had many of his initial nominees ignored completely.
I'm sure Miguel Estrada, who was stonewalled because he was a Hispanic judge that didn't toe the Democratic Party line, might disagree with you on whether delays are going on.
Finally, the Senate Democrats themselves announced they would delay appointments. They issue a fscking statement to the media saying exactly that. Proof enough for you? Do I have to get Tom Daschle to call you and tell you exactly the same thing?
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
There are some additional definitions as well:
Democrat (n): Some one who thinks you are too stupid to make decisions for your self, so the government should make them for you by taxing the living shite out of everyone and creating a vast gigantic pig such that Americans will need to suckle at the teat in order to survive.
Republican (n): Some one who thinks you are too stupid to make decisions for your self, so the government should not tax the rich and powerful top 1% cause they really have everyone's best interest at heart, including bending us all over and giving us what we need, the way they want to.
Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
Something I've wondered about is the legalities of 'fuzzy' recordings.
eg : you download a 160kbps MP3, the RIAA gives you a court order for copyright infringement. The copyright is for a song that they have the rights for.
But is their copyright valid for the digital representation of the song? The RIAA'd argue yes , of course it is, after all CD's contain binary 16 bit samples of audio at 44.1kHz.
But, even with your leet 160kbps mp3, you don't have an exact duplicate in it's entirety - not by a long shot. Could you argue that your MP3 is just a summary of the original work? It's 1/10th the size, isn't it? To draw (hah!) a parallel in the art world, does my rough sketch of monet's sunflowers constitute copyright infringement? Hardly.
Take a leaf from the SCO debacle, and print out a copy of both the CD digital audio and your MP3 onto paper and politely ask the prosecutor to underline the offending parts of your data for you. Just the sheer difference in size of your printouts would go some way in convincing the court that they are not the same.
If they pull the "for all intents and purposes" response, just wheel out the expert witnesses and the double-blind tests, and the sonographs of distortion. You should be able to prove that the audio that your collection of bits on your drive represent is completely different to the audio from the collection of bits on the CD.
What am I missing here? Why is this defence not used?
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.