in GEORGIA (Deep South Georgia, not Mustachestan Georgia, right?) one well-off American makes a comment that gives the store clerk (another American, of similar ethnic origin) reason to believe that the purchase intended will lead to a crime. the store clerk then follows the Federal law (albeit, in perhaps a somewhat picayune interpretation) and denies the sale -- well within the rights of the store. And several people claim VICTIM because the first American has to go to Best-buy to buy an iPad?
it happened in GEORGIA. is this really the most racist event we can find? Georgia? really?
the HS down the street from us was throwing away perfectly good TRS80s so i picked up 5 and configured them to run as a Beowulf cluster and i soldered a nice case to carry the boards around. the punch card input via telex works fine now that I have written my own version of DOS and drivers. why would you need a mac?
George Alec Effinger:
Marîd Audran series
When Gravity Fails (1987)
A Fire in the Sun (1989)
The Exile Kiss (1991)
The Audran Sequence (omnibus)
Budayeen Nights (short stories, 2003)
Mary Doria Russel:
The Sparrow (1996)
Children of God (1998)
Stephen R Donaldson:
The Gap series
The Gap into Conflict: The Real Story (1991)
The Gap into Vision: Forbidden Knowledge (1991)
The Gap into Power: A Dark and Hungry God Arises (1993)
The Gap into Madness: Chaos and Order (1994)
The Gap into Ruin: This Day All Gods Die (1996)
george alec effinger's Marîd Audran series: When Gravity Fails (1987), A Fire in the Sun (1989), The Exile Kiss (1991), The Audran Sequence (omnibus), Budayeen Nights (short stories, 2003)
And mary doria russel's: The Sparrow (1996), Children of God (1998)
There is at least ten mac hater for every fanboy, each posting ten whining comment for every adulation of apple. Actually, I think that there are five armies at least: apple fanbois, MS-Shills, apple fanboi haters, linux distro schismatics, and goatse afficianados.
There are no "mac haters", just people who hate people who love macs.
I think that after 2 months I would have filed a police report charging the store with theft and ask for criminal charges to be brought against the manager and geek squad.
Stealing / not stealing...
I think that a different and perhaps better metaphor for sharing media is "sourdough".
Sour dough is made from strains of yeast that have been carefully cultivated and are carefully guarded. Anyone can make their own but the chance of producing something BAD is pretty high. So far that fits most content, right?
Now if I were to take some of Mr AA's starter and share it with my friends, would I have stolen? his starter is not diminished by my taking some. in fact good starter needs to be used and replenished or it goes stale. (again fits most big studio content) Now the original act of taking the starter need not be accomplished by me: if I just put a jar of warm sugarwater and flour near an open window at AA's Bakery I can grab the starter, or I can scrape the apron of a worker there.
sharing the starter is free or nearly so and each copy if transfered carefully is almost perfectly identical.
I believe the only stealing is if someone puts a spoon in the jar: certainly no one of my friends' copies are theft even though they are the same as the original.
I'm not disagreeing per se, but I am not entirely sold on that "best solution as designed by evolution" pitch. One very good reason that evolution may have created sleep is not that sleep is the best fix, but the cludge that it came up with. consider that many animals never sleep. It may be that sleep is just Nature's way of making us go inactive when a niche does not suit us. animals designed for nightlife do poorly in daylight and so tend to sleep then. animals that don't do well in the dark sleep at night. this may be selection in which sleep is really to keep us from walking around where there are predators we can't see. for that matter, big cats and house cats alike would kill all possible prey and starve if not unconscious 20 hours a day.
If allowed to "follow the necessities of life, survival, eating[,] drinking, (and if your [sic] lucky enough) Reproduction" to heart's content, we would have died out on the savannah.
In the philippines you cannot buy a sealed box of any consumer electronics. at or before checkout everything is pulled from the box and powered up in front of the customer. (At hardware stores they even check light bulbs first.)
Employee pilferage and fraud at return are dramatically reduced.
Some airport security just shot a kid with an ill conceived art project. Yes, I can see how that is an avoidance of possible loss of life. Do you believe police should summarily execute anyone they suspect of having unknown devices? or only in airports?
The US was at one time a great country as opposed to a superpower. What made it great was not an ill conceived idea of security, but rather its civil liberties put in place at its founding to prevent tyranny of the state against its citizens.
I can't think of many examples where restrictive nanny states have lead to more safety. Restrictive governments tend to encourage bomb throwing.
I make a distinction between individuals and retailers, so if I were emperor of the world I would probably not bother to enforce rules with yard sales, church jumbles, and cheap re-gifting bastards.
I appreciate the emotion behind your position. We are not talking about ownership though, we are talking about a sort of identity theft. If a reseller is selling volumes and not a one-off piece, and if the seller is calling the items new, then they are implying that they are part of the official distribution chain and they benefit from consumer confusion.
Please don't think that I am saying that this is an issue for all products: a maker of blenders will care less than the makers of fresh pork products or high-end electronics; the maker of plastic spatulas for applying spackle almost certainly doesn't care at all. The more closely the brand name and QA are tied to a product the less right a reseller has.
If you can buy a "new" ABC car stereo everywhere but with no service or QA at a reduced price, and you can only get the equivalent DEF stereo at authorized dealers, but DEF comes with full warranty, etc., which will you purchase for your new car? If the mark down on ABC is not deep enough, few if any would be likely to bother with it.
I chose scientific equipment for the very reason that it is the most extreme example.
No precision equipment can handle the shock you describe, no matter how well packaged -- even changes of temperature can foul it.
By this unlicensed retailer passing off this equipment as new, he is purporting to be selling it in the condition that I, the manufacturer, have demanded for QA. There's the issue: he has not maintained my standards but he is benefiting from them.
You seem to think that if I make a product, that the product is complete and whole when it leaves the factory door. I would offer you the example of a high end two part air conditioner: when it leaves my doors my association with it has not ended. The consumer has a reasonable expectation of delivery, installation, service, and support. The costs of these functions, the costs of marketing my brand, etc., are all built in to the pricing. Retailers and distributers share the cost of performing these jobs (as contracted) in return for the revenue earned by selling air conditioners. When someone comes along and sells my product as new, but does not include the entire service package he is cheating the retailer, the manufacturer, and the customer.
If I buy an LG tv off the back of a truck, and when I get home it flickers, LG will have to service the tv at a loss, or leave me dissatisfied. If I am unhappy they have lost me as a future customer, and likely several of my friends.
I not really sure what you think your point is; you seem to be implying that collapses do not occur -- that Adam Smith's invisible hand somehow makes everything all right in the end. I agree that in many cases it is true that the hand will save the day (All praise the Hand!), but even Adam Smith felt that the free market ALONE was not enough to prevent the cumulative effects of individuals gaming the system from overwhelming and collapsing the system.
Monopolies do occur in the real world and economies and industries do collapse. Granted, a one-woman boot sale of face creams will probably not kill off the dinosaurs, but when multiplied out... An individual's vested self interest does not always serve society and in fact that is why, as a society, we create laws to govern property rights and contract law.
Robert Frank's recent 'Economic Naturalist' has a whole chapter explaining this, and it has pictures! (Seriously, I will probably assign this to my students in the fall and I would love your feedback on it.)
So they hit back with every legal weirdness they can find. You can't use their trademarked names. You can't use photographs of their products. Etc.
It's stupid and it should be shot down. No, I do not think it is stupid. Manufacturers have invested in their brands and reputations. For example, a large part of Brand awareness comes from quality assurance. In the case of third party sales (be they flea markets or ebay), the manufacturer has no control over the merchandise.
If I produce a digital scale, for example, and it is intended for precision work, I will probably be expected to service it. if it gets sold by a third party who has not signed any handling agreements and introduced the scale to shock or extreme environments the customers will still expect my scale to be supported by me.
As the producer I am hurt by this reseller; not because he has sold my product below MFSR, but because he sold it as new. He is benefiting from my brand's reputation for quality assurance without paying for the cost of maintaining the standard. I would have no legitimate complaint if it were sold as used.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need the State to protect us from the marketplace, but since it is not ideal, maybe government regulation should limit itself to preventing bad contract conditions and nothing else?
When the state is not acting as an outside control we can quickly encounter the "tragedy of the commons". Price wars tend to serve the interests of the consumer only in the short term. in the long run, frequent or long duration price wars lead to monopolies.
in other words, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
Here is an idea that may be worth a business model for a new and improved MPAA response to digital distribution.
Since copying is illegal but public libraries are fair use, what if it were guaranteed that the file were erased from the originating computer after the transfer was completed? For example a library of some number of movies (multiple copies of each movie) could be purchased and distributed among some number of users. The software to distribute the movies could be based on BitTorrent but after I download a copy of Movie A it is removed from at least one of the other users. Movies that have been stored on or downloaded onto my machine that I want to watch would be queued on my machine for a period of one week. The movie would rejoin the delete queue after one week or if I marked it as ready for delete.
the number of movies on a user's Watch queue could be limited if need be. The total number of users can grow by growing the library: each new user must pay a one time fee equal to a new movie. the original library would have to be seeded with donations but if a DVD ripping format and encoding were agreed upon we could all donate our personal dvd collections. the more we donate the more we are allowed to have on our watch queues. download speed and priority could be controlled based on hdd space provided for shares not on watch queues and available up load speeds of different users.
I would be interested in seeing the stats you are describing. Is there a site you can link where they are compiled? You are correct in pointing out the flawed nature of only going by the anecdotal evidence.
I just wish you hadn't dumbed down your message with your pissy attitude and tone -- it makes it more likely that your thoughts will get lost in the noise.
I don't doubt that this happens. I just think that IP should not be discounted as a source of circumstantial evidence. it is a reasonable place for an investigation to begin. I agree that it is a damn poor place to end it.
..."transparent to over 50 percent of the light that shines on it" (direct quote from the article) even slightly the same thing as "almost transparent" (direct quote from the summary). I believe they mean 50% of the spectrum. It may very well still be transparent. For example most window glass is transparent to our eyes but opaque to UVB.
The difficulty you have with the RIAA is really four things. One, people think its a desperate defence of a dead business model. Two they think its trying to reduce rights which buyers had below what they had for physical media. Three they see evidence with potential technical holes in it being used. Four, they see the evidence which should only be grounds for investigation being used as if it would support the weight of prosecution without any more supporting material evidence.
Thank you. I very much appreciate being told what I think. I often have trouble figuring it out on my own. (this is sarcasm with a smile; my daughter also likes to tell me what I think, and better still: what I should think!)
Actually MY problem with the RIAA is that their abuse of the legal system is extortion and it cheapens the quality of the courts while raising the costs of the courts.
As the law stands now -- and I believe it to be wrong and unenforceable in practice -- it is illegal for me to take a cd I own and share it with a few thousand strangers. it is also illegal for me to make a massive collection of music on my HDD by downloading copyrighted material off of the net.
We can argue that the law is bad -- it is; we can argue that the current prosecution of the law is flawed in the manner it is being handled; we can argue that RIAA are IT Ignoratti;
We Slashdotties often seem to be muddling these arguments and confusing the RIAA's lack of moral right to go after people who are infringing on their distribution rights with the RIAA's quite strong legal right. (never-mind that the RIAA has overstepped their legal authority with the collusion of prosecutors and law enforcement on many occasions.)
What is making me uncomfortable about this is that we are starting to act as if "Since the RIAA is wrong in this matter they must be wrong in that matter as well." It's a logical fallacy and if we a precedent is set with the courts to mistrust all IP information by default we lose a good indication of possible guilt in more serious criminal investigations.
I agree that IP evidence ALONE should not convict, but it should be considered as strong circumstantial evidence and be considered as such.
1) I think you see where I am coming from. If it is a strong defense, can we live with the possible consequences; and the same question if we decide it is a weak defense.
2) ah, that was a joke. someone suggested in a.sig that it was wrong to be both informative and funny in one post. I was trying to show that, for me at least, it may not even be possible. mission accomplished!
I agree with most slashdotties that RIAA is evil. However, I wanted to offer a thought problem to see if we are not over reacting:
If a John/Jane Doe were accused of some other, more serious and more REAL crime, such as downloading & distributing kiddie porn or sending ransom notes, what burdens would we put on the prosecution for tying the IP to the PC, PC to the owner, Owner to user?
Would we accept the WLAN and WEP breach defenses?
I am not asking a question of Point of Law. I am asking what our collective opinion would be for acceptability of defenses from a technical and emotional POV. Would we be satisfied that justice had been served if those defenses were used to avoid prosecution in such cases? I realize that criminal cases have greater burden of proof, etc., but that is not my point.
BTW this may become germane to RIAA: if they are convicted of RICO, we may be seeing them quite successfully claiming in court that "the extortion letters may have come from my IP# but I don't know how they got out. I never saw them before."
Before flaming, NB I agree that this is not Kiddie porn and the RIAA is made up of egg-sucking curs.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is a local net for local people; we'll have no trouble here!"
in GEORGIA (Deep South Georgia, not Mustachestan Georgia, right?) one well-off American makes a comment that gives the store clerk (another American, of similar ethnic origin) reason to believe that the purchase intended will lead to a crime. the store clerk then follows the Federal law (albeit, in perhaps a somewhat picayune interpretation) and denies the sale -- well within the rights of the store. And several people claim VICTIM because the first American has to go to Best-buy to buy an iPad? it happened in GEORGIA. is this really the most racist event we can find? Georgia? really?
the HS down the street from us was throwing away perfectly good TRS80s so i picked up 5 and configured them to run as a Beowulf cluster and i soldered a nice case to carry the boards around. the punch card input via telex works fine now that I have written my own version of DOS and drivers. why would you need a mac?
George Alec Effinger: Marîd Audran series When Gravity Fails (1987) A Fire in the Sun (1989) The Exile Kiss (1991) The Audran Sequence (omnibus) Budayeen Nights (short stories, 2003) Mary Doria Russel: The Sparrow (1996) Children of God (1998) Stephen R Donaldson: The Gap series The Gap into Conflict: The Real Story (1991) The Gap into Vision: Forbidden Knowledge (1991) The Gap into Power: A Dark and Hungry God Arises (1993) The Gap into Madness: Chaos and Order (1994) The Gap into Ruin: This Day All Gods Die (1996)
george alec effinger's Marîd Audran series: When Gravity Fails (1987), A Fire in the Sun (1989), The Exile Kiss (1991), The Audran Sequence (omnibus), Budayeen Nights (short stories, 2003) And mary doria russel's: The Sparrow (1996), Children of God (1998)
I think that after 2 months I would have filed a police report charging the store with theft and ask for criminal charges to be brought against the manager and geek squad.
Stealing / not stealing... I think that a different and perhaps better metaphor for sharing media is "sourdough". Sour dough is made from strains of yeast that have been carefully cultivated and are carefully guarded. Anyone can make their own but the chance of producing something BAD is pretty high. So far that fits most content, right? Now if I were to take some of Mr AA's starter and share it with my friends, would I have stolen? his starter is not diminished by my taking some. in fact good starter needs to be used and replenished or it goes stale. (again fits most big studio content) Now the original act of taking the starter need not be accomplished by me: if I just put a jar of warm sugarwater and flour near an open window at AA's Bakery I can grab the starter, or I can scrape the apron of a worker there. sharing the starter is free or nearly so and each copy if transfered carefully is almost perfectly identical. I believe the only stealing is if someone puts a spoon in the jar: certainly no one of my friends' copies are theft even though they are the same as the original.
I'm not disagreeing per se, but I am not entirely sold on that "best solution as designed by evolution" pitch. One very good reason that evolution may have created sleep is not that sleep is the best fix, but the cludge that it came up with. consider that many animals never sleep. It may be that sleep is just Nature's way of making us go inactive when a niche does not suit us. animals designed for nightlife do poorly in daylight and so tend to sleep then. animals that don't do well in the dark sleep at night. this may be selection in which sleep is really to keep us from walking around where there are predators we can't see. for that matter, big cats and house cats alike would kill all possible prey and starve if not unconscious 20 hours a day. If allowed to "follow the necessities of life, survival, eating[,] drinking, (and if your [sic] lucky enough) Reproduction" to heart's content, we would have died out on the savannah.
In the philippines you cannot buy a sealed box of any consumer electronics. at or before checkout everything is pulled from the box and powered up in front of the customer. (At hardware stores they even check light bulbs first.) Employee pilferage and fraud at return are dramatically reduced.
Wow, innocent until proven gui*BANG!
Some airport security just shot a kid with an ill conceived art project. Yes, I can see how that is an avoidance of possible loss of life. Do you believe police should summarily execute anyone they suspect of having unknown devices? or only in airports?
The US was at one time a great country as opposed to a superpower. What made it great was not an ill conceived idea of security, but rather its civil liberties put in place at its founding to prevent tyranny of the state against its citizens.
I can't think of many examples where restrictive nanny states have lead to more safety. Restrictive governments tend to encourage bomb throwing.
I make a distinction between individuals and retailers, so if I were emperor of the world I would probably not bother to enforce rules with yard sales, church jumbles, and cheap re-gifting bastards.
I appreciate the emotion behind your position. We are not talking about ownership though, we are talking about a sort of identity theft. If a reseller is selling volumes and not a one-off piece, and if the seller is calling the items new, then they are implying that they are part of the official distribution chain and they benefit from consumer confusion.
Please don't think that I am saying that this is an issue for all products: a maker of blenders will care less than the makers of fresh pork products or high-end electronics; the maker of plastic spatulas for applying spackle almost certainly doesn't care at all. The more closely the brand name and QA are tied to a product the less right a reseller has.
If you can buy a "new" ABC car stereo everywhere but with no service or QA at a reduced price, and you can only get the equivalent DEF stereo at authorized dealers, but DEF comes with full warranty, etc., which will you purchase for your new car? If the mark down on ABC is not deep enough, few if any would be likely to bother with it.
I chose scientific equipment for the very reason that it is the most extreme example.
No precision equipment can handle the shock you describe, no matter how well packaged -- even changes of temperature can foul it.
By this unlicensed retailer passing off this equipment as new, he is purporting to be selling it in the condition that I, the manufacturer, have demanded for QA. There's the issue: he has not maintained my standards but he is benefiting from them.
You seem to think that if I make a product, that the product is complete and whole when it leaves the factory door. I would offer you the example of a high end two part air conditioner: when it leaves my doors my association with it has not ended. The consumer has a reasonable expectation of delivery, installation, service, and support. The costs of these functions, the costs of marketing my brand, etc., are all built in to the pricing. Retailers and distributers share the cost of performing these jobs (as contracted) in return for the revenue earned by selling air conditioners. When someone comes along and sells my product as new, but does not include the entire service package he is cheating the retailer, the manufacturer, and the customer.
If I buy an LG tv off the back of a truck, and when I get home it flickers, LG will have to service the tv at a loss, or leave me dissatisfied. If I am unhappy they have lost me as a future customer, and likely several of my friends.
I not really sure what you think your point is; you seem to be implying that collapses do not occur -- that Adam Smith's invisible hand somehow makes everything all right in the end. I agree that in many cases it is true that the hand will save the day (All praise the Hand!), but even Adam Smith felt that the free market ALONE was not enough to prevent the cumulative effects of individuals gaming the system from overwhelming and collapsing the system.
Monopolies do occur in the real world and economies and industries do collapse. Granted, a one-woman boot sale of face creams will probably not kill off the dinosaurs, but when multiplied out... An individual's vested self interest does not always serve society and in fact that is why, as a society, we create laws to govern property rights and contract law.
Robert Frank's recent 'Economic Naturalist' has a whole chapter explaining this, and it has pictures! (Seriously, I will probably assign this to my students in the fall and I would love your feedback on it.)
It's stupid and it should be shot down. No, I do not think it is stupid. Manufacturers have invested in their brands and reputations. For example, a large part of Brand awareness comes from quality assurance. In the case of third party sales (be they flea markets or ebay), the manufacturer has no control over the merchandise.
If I produce a digital scale, for example, and it is intended for precision work, I will probably be expected to service it. if it gets sold by a third party who has not signed any handling agreements and introduced the scale to shock or extreme environments the customers will still expect my scale to be supported by me.
As the producer I am hurt by this reseller; not because he has sold my product below MFSR, but because he sold it as new. He is benefiting from my brand's reputation for quality assurance without paying for the cost of maintaining the standard. I would have no legitimate complaint if it were sold as used.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need the State to protect us from the marketplace, but since it is not ideal, maybe government regulation should limit itself to preventing bad contract conditions and nothing else?
When the state is not acting as an outside control we can quickly encounter the "tragedy of the commons". Price wars tend to serve the interests of the consumer only in the short term. in the long run, frequent or long duration price wars lead to monopolies.in other words, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
Here is an idea that may be worth a business model for a new and improved MPAA response to digital distribution.
Since copying is illegal but public libraries are fair use, what if it were guaranteed that the file were erased from the originating computer after the transfer was completed? For example a library of some number of movies (multiple copies of each movie) could be purchased and distributed among some number of users. The software to distribute the movies could be based on BitTorrent but after I download a copy of Movie A it is removed from at least one of the other users. Movies that have been stored on or downloaded onto my machine that I want to watch would be queued on my machine for a period of one week. The movie would rejoin the delete queue after one week or if I marked it as ready for delete.
the number of movies on a user's Watch queue could be limited if need be. The total number of users can grow by growing the library: each new user must pay a one time fee equal to a new movie. the original library would have to be seeded with donations but if a DVD ripping format and encoding were agreed upon we could all donate our personal dvd collections. the more we donate the more we are allowed to have on our watch queues. download speed and priority could be controlled based on hdd space provided for shares not on watch queues and available up load speeds of different users.
I would be interested in seeing the stats you are describing. Is there a site you can link where they are compiled? You are correct in pointing out the flawed nature of only going by the anecdotal evidence. I just wish you hadn't dumbed down your message with your pissy attitude and tone -- it makes it more likely that your thoughts will get lost in the noise.
I don't doubt that this happens. I just think that IP should not be discounted as a source of circumstantial evidence. it is a reasonable place for an investigation to begin. I agree that it is a damn poor place to end it.
..."transparent to over 50 percent of the light that shines on it" (direct quote from the article) even slightly the same thing as "almost transparent" (direct quote from the summary). I believe they mean 50% of the spectrum. It may very well still be transparent. For example most window glass is transparent to our eyes but opaque to UVB.Somehow EVERYTHING got quoted, even my original text. sorry.
Thank you. I very much appreciate being told what I think. I often have trouble figuring it out on my own. (this is sarcasm with a smile; my daughter also likes to tell me what I think, and better still: what I should think!)
Actually MY problem with the RIAA is that their abuse of the legal system is extortion and it cheapens the quality of the courts while raising the costs of the courts.
As the law stands now -- and I believe it to be wrong and unenforceable in practice -- it is illegal for me to take a cd I own and share it with a few thousand strangers. it is also illegal for me to make a massive collection of music on my HDD by downloading copyrighted material off of the net.
We can argue that the law is bad -- it is;
we can argue that the current prosecution of the law is flawed in the manner it is being handled;
we can argue that RIAA are IT Ignoratti;
We Slashdotties often seem to be muddling these arguments and confusing the RIAA's lack of moral right to go after people who are infringing on their distribution rights with the RIAA's quite strong legal right. (never-mind that the RIAA has overstepped their legal authority with the collusion of prosecutors and law enforcement on many occasions.)
What is making me uncomfortable about this is that we are starting to act as if "Since the RIAA is wrong in this matter they must be wrong in that matter as well." It's a logical fallacy and if we a precedent is set with the courts to mistrust all IP information by default we lose a good indication of possible guilt in more serious criminal investigations.
I agree that IP evidence ALONE should not convict, but it should be considered as strong circumstantial evidence and be considered as such.
1) I think you see where I am coming from. If it is a strong defense, can we live with the possible consequences; and the same question if we decide it is a weak defense.
.sig that it was wrong to be both informative and funny in one post. I was trying to show that, for me at least, it may not even be possible. mission accomplished!
2) ah, that was a joke. someone suggested in a
I agree with most slashdotties that RIAA is evil. However, I wanted to offer a thought problem to see if we are not over reacting:
If a John/Jane Doe were accused of some other, more serious and more REAL crime, such as downloading & distributing kiddie porn or sending ransom notes, what burdens would we put on the prosecution for tying the IP to the PC, PC to the owner, Owner to user?
Would we accept the WLAN and WEP breach defenses?
I am not asking a question of Point of Law. I am asking what our collective opinion would be for acceptability of defenses from a technical and emotional POV. Would we be satisfied that justice had been served if those defenses were used to avoid prosecution in such cases? I realize that criminal cases have greater burden of proof, etc., but that is not my point.
BTW this may become germane to RIAA: if they are convicted of RICO, we may be seeing them quite successfully claiming in court that "the extortion letters may have come from my IP# but I don't know how they got out. I never saw them before."
Before flaming, NB I agree that this is not Kiddie porn and the RIAA is made up of egg-sucking curs.