Re:Littering the world with ads for IP
on
Copyright Defeats?
·
· Score: 1
I fail to see how downloading a copy of Britney or Nsync or Madonna or The Fast and the Furious or any of the other garbage being pushed down our throats is any sort of solution.
If downloading IP for free either removes the financial incentive for companies to litter the world with it or gives said companies a notion of what people really like vs what they'll tolerate having crammed at them, then I'd consider that a step forward.
Unauthorized use of the source material gives media companies something to point to and cry out for the need to protect their IP and results in the kind of insane laws currently being passed in the US.
My suspicion is that the insane laws in the US and elsewhere would not stop being passed if perfect control of IP were to be achieved. The goals of commercial entities are to maximize profit, no matter how much profit has already been made and no matter what the cost to the public. P2P networks gave corporations the inroads and ideas on how to negotiate for the insane laws, but if there is a demise to P2P it will not sate commercialism's thirst for maximum profit and maximum control.
Re:Littering the world with ads for IP
on
Copyright Defeats?
·
· Score: 1
Purchasing an IP work without knowing its contents does happen, perhaps as in buying a book without having read it. I'm thinking more of works whos contents are known: common songs, known movies, etc. When songs are played incessantly on the radio in public places, malls, bathrooms, bars, in a push to popularize the song, I regard it as polluting the commons. The media establishment is not trying to give consumers what they want, or educate them or better them; they are only trying to gather as big a pile of money as possible, and they don't care at what cost this comes to the general populace. Hence they have impoverished our cultural world, pushing krap and artificially restricting a legacy of cultural wealth. That, combined specifically with the ease with which songs can now be duplicated, makes me regard such pollution as a justification for citizens to put such songs to whatever purposes they would like.
How about: "Creators have the right to set a price for use of their creation". Individuals can decide if they want to pay the price or go without access to the created work.
The above proposition would only feel fair to me if a potentially IP-consuming citizen had the right to never see advertisements or enticements for IP that the citizen has indicated they do not want to behold. For instance, billboards (which should IMO be thought of as owned by the public, like the airwaves) are typically used to hammer messages into people until they get bored into going along for the ride. Likewise for network television ads, radio, magazines, etc. If the creators of IP want us to respect a model where that IP commands a price, then the minimum I would require is that I am empowered to choose to live in a world that is not littered and strewn at every turn with intellectual garbage related to the hawking of said IP. For this reason I cannot go along with the proposition above. If someone litters my lawn with coconuts, I am going to feel the right to pick one up and own it.
Yeah, I hear ya. Sometimes those things don't work out quite as well as we'd wish. Gee, it seems that you and I have a lot in common... both single, both open to the notion of meeting that special someone, neither of us busy this Friday night, you love paying for meals and I love having them paid for. Just as long as you don't think I'd owe you anything for the meal. And we don't have to get sexual or anything. Unless that's what you want. Is that what you want? Because I can do that. Oy, the headgames and the stress. You know, this just isn't working out. Can we be friends?
Question: does a bootable cd, like this one or knoppix, mean it's either more difficult or impossible for remote hackers to get a root kit into the system?
A term derived from the dud missiles used by Hussein during desert storm. A while back there was a list of humorous office terms that included "scud memo: a poorly conceived and drafted memo that does more damage to its sender than to its intended target." Describes SCO perfectly.
The more indifference SCO encounters, the more dramatic they become, because being ignored is not acceptable.
I agree, and see a similarity between SCO's increasingly dramatic antics and those of North Korea. When a week goes by and Linus hasn't responded, SCO will start talking about turning linux into "a raging sea of fire".
Dean Kamen flashback
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
IT within the CIA
I imagined for a moment that the CIA had finally gotten around to equipping all their agents with stealth Segways.
This article is so unbelieveably biased that I didn't even have to look at the source to realize that it was Union rag.... of course, the article launches into the obligatory attack on Microsoft and its evil feudalistic business practices
The villains in the article are not Microsoft but the contracting agencies (Volt, Excell, etc); they are the ones instigating the anti-worker contract terms and suing for their enforcement.
because who doesn't hate MS, right?
There are many reasons to dislike Microsoft, and - having endured their effects for years and carefully analyzed them many times - I subscribe to quite a few of them. Your implication that disliking Microsoft must simply be a reflex, along with your labeling of the article as "union rag", doesn't make you out to be any more thoughtful or intelligent than how you'd like to portray those who *are* in fact engaged in meaningful discussions on the topic.
The hardware would be amazingly simple! A peek inside the box reveals a stunningly minimal part count, enclosed in what only appears to be a single wire running from "VIDEO IN" to "VIDEO OUT."
I can see it. Whereas now when you're watching live tv you can get messages saying "Tivo needs to change the channel in order to record a show you've scheduled. Ok to change?", tivo could instead give a message "Tivo needs to change the channel in order to change the channel to the channel you just specified with your remote. Ok to change?" (Options "Yes, go ahead and change it" and "No, it was rash of me to hit that button and I've changed my mind".)
I suppose people would still have a hard time rolling their own tivo because of the value Tivo would continue to add with their program guide subscription.
When money becomes trackable, perhaps even beyond the ability of a microwaving to fix, I will make it a regular habit to ask friends and acquaintences if they'd like to enter into an ongoing money swap arrangement. People engaged in this practice will make it a habit to carry, say, $200 in cash, and will make it a point to swap bills every so often. As long as this is an ongoing practice, it's not even necessary to efficiently randomize who has what bills; all you need to do when questioned by Homeland Security about hookers/dope/etc is profess to be a money swapper, and offer to call numerous witnesses to that fact; ergo, anyone could have been the person who plunked down bills that the atm originally dispensed to you. And the social practice of swapping bills will serve to draw like-minded people together.
As a final note cases such as these serve as a warning to any other potentially unscrupulous individuals that may have considered stealing GPL code.
I feel obligated to point out that violation of the GPL is not stealing... it is copyright/license infringement.
Slashdot discussions hold various examples of folks who refer to p2p copyrighted file sharing as "stealing". Some people (with whom I agree) then respond that this is not an example of stealing, it is an example of copyright infringement. This clarification is not intended to condone (or condemn) the sharing of copyrighted material; the point is to not sink to the same level of newspeak as the RIAA/MPAA which claims (for example) that not watching commercials is "stealing". The reason this is important is that it has everything to do with what legal analysis and remedies can and should be brought to bear on the matter.
When something has been stolen, there are clear answers to the questions (1) who has lost, and (2) how much. It is in the world of copyright infringement that these questions become enormously debatable.
[The GPL] gives users of GPL-licensed software the right to see the source code, or programming instructions, of the software and to make modifications. But there's a string attached: If you create software that is derived from software previously licensed under the GPL, you must release what you've written under the same license.
AFAIK you only have to release the source code to your software if you release the binaries. This may seem like a pedantic point, but in fact it makes a profound difference for any business that wants to go the "service bureau" route. Suppose your business consists of processing digital image files that customers submit. If the software that does this is built from GPL'd components, you nevertheless do *not* need to release the source code as long as it runs only on your servers. If instead you release a consumer version of the software, that is the point at which you must release the source as well.
If you're that wound up about it, request a copy of the source from the distributor.
I don't think the parent post was "wound up", and I happen to agree with its sentiments. Supposing that it's perfectly in line with the GPL to restrict access to formal requests, we are nevertheless faced with the question of WHY someone trying to create a community would not just simply put the source on the server. The parent post's points regarding how open source processes result in bug fixes and leverage disparate talent efficiently are spot-on. Now that I know there aren't tons of eyeballs looking at the source for open zaurus, there's no reason for me to believe it doesn't have some kind of major flaw, intentional back door, or tendency to become abandonware if the one person working on it decides to close up shop and do something else. Because these questions are important to me, I will not be getting a zaurus until such a time as these issues are resolved.
What a great way for the company to prop up the public's flagging interest: stage a "robbery".:)
In unrelated news, another local residence was burgled. This time the thieves absconded with an entire box of Super Sugar Crisp Cereal. "What kind of monsters would DO such a thing?" sobbed the distraught homeowner, whos identity was being kept private until next of kin could be notified.
I've seen a few articles on a societal state called something like a "Total Information Society" where there is zero privacy. The stated motivation to achieve this is a combination of (1) technology is going there in an inexorable way anyhow, and (2) it is the only way to prevent abuse by an elite who solely have access to private information (so we eliminate that elite and keep them honest by having everyone else capable of monitoring them).
For example, terrorists have unfettered access on information to build bombs and where to drop them to achieve maximal damage... but they'll be thwarted because everyone else knows that the terrorists are building those bombs and will stop them.
In my opinion, the above terrorist/counter-terrorist scenario places too much faith in total information as ultimately helping "the good cause". To continue forward with the scenario a bit: the terrorists are able to find out precisely how others are planning to stop them, and take counter measures. And so on. It seems far from clear where the one-upsmanship might end.
The other thing I see ignored is the notion that we may not be psychologically equipped to deal with knowing everything about each other. There's the mundane: knowing whenever anyone fornicates, masturbates, etc. What about those who don't believe in the manner in which these activities are conducted? For that matter, what about the religious extremists who don't tolerate those whose beliefs are different, even today? The only thing currently preventing extremists from displaying even more intolerance today may be their lack of information about who happens to disagree with them.
If you think the law on speeding is wrong, campaign against the law.... why on earth should you have the right to break it and not get caught?
Because not all laws are just, and not all unjust laws have reasonable ways of changing them. Someone may not have the time and energy to mount a campaign. A campaign that does get started may have no effect, and there is generally no fixed timetable in which to tell when an outcome will emerge. An eventual failure of the campaign to change anything may have nothing to do with the merits of the issue or the alignment of a campaign with prescribed reform guidelines; all that's needed is for a politician to be listening to corporate money or to "anti-terrorism" directives.
Having a box that records five seconds worth of data is not a problem.
Not necessarily agreed, but even stipulating the point there's no guarantee that five seconds will remain all that gets recorded. It's likely that five seconds will become longer, and that the types of data recorded will increase in number. What about when the data recorded includes your cellphone conversations? Your non-cellphone conversations? Your gps location? The rfid tag info of the clothing of your passengers? What you chose to listen to on the radio? Video of you? If these sound far fetched to you, think about the Patriot act and related political ongoings.
If I own the car (and hence the box) shouldn't I be allowed to hack it, or remove it from my system if I want to?
I believe a fair legal system would uphold your ability to do so, but this sounds suspiciously like the very kind of thing the DMCA is used to prevent. Coincidentally enough, the ability (or not) to modify cars is used as an illustration in The DMCA in plain English:
Imagine if all the major automobile makers required all buyers of their products to accept a contract along the following lines:
1. You may not open the hood of this vehicle.
2. You may not make the minor modifications necessary to operate this vehicle in any country other than the United States.
3. If you find a safety defect in this vehicle, you may not report it to any third party.
4. If you violate any of terms 1 through 3, you can be sent to prison for up to ten years.
This contract is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.
The article claims the DMCA currently applies only to entertainment products, but I don't know that to be true. As covered recently in slashdot, the DMCA is being used to prevent 3rd parties from manufacturing ink cartridges for a certain kind of printer. And if there is any language in the DMCA that suggests it doesn't apply to xyz, I would not be at all surprised to see such language changed.
Maybe I'm misreading your tone but I got the impression that you don't like the measured criticism of the US political system that the parent post presented. It may well be the case that this country has done great things for you that would not have been possible where you came from, and for that the country deserves praise. But the criticism presented by the parent post was hardly scathing or blind; in fact it was dead-on accurate in its assertion that US politics are becoming corrupt and that there is a need for citizen vigilance and participation.
The "horrible system" mantra in your post is your contribution to this discussion, not the parent post's, yet you repeat it accusatorily as though to ascribe it to the parent. This tactic bears similarities to propaganda, not reasonable discussion.
The values of this country which you claim to hold so dear might just disappear if reasonable critiques of the politicial situation are met with disbelief and calls for abject adulation.
sharing mp3's is a little bit different than your hot dog vendor example. Think of this: what would happen if someone started to pump fake dollars into any economy, at an exponential rate? the value is decreased, thus a loss of "wealth". The same thing happens to music, when every joe on the block can get it for free. This isn't "potential" loss of wealth. It will definitely happen..no matter what.
Interesting example. An open question is: precisely who will lose, and how much? In thievery, both of these questions have relatively clear answers. For file swapping, it is anything but clear. I know people who have bought albums they would never have otherwise bought because they were exposed to music on p2p that they wouldn't have heard otherwise. I also know people who download songs they enjoy but would never have paid for them. And there is the question of to what degree the recording industry's distribution monopoly has deprived other business models of revenue; has the recording industry therefore stolen?
when the Bre-X/Enron/MCI/Nortel/Corel/Whoever CEOs lied about earnings, cashed out all their stocks, then sat back and watched the price plummet? As far as I'm concerned, they STOLE money
If you think that what those execs did was wrong and deserves to be roundly punished, then we are in complete agreement. And - for the sake of an informal discussion between us which is without legal consequence - I'm even ok with referring to what they did as stealing, because I believe that the intent of such language is to convey one's disgust with what happened (and rightfully so). But if you and I are promoted to judges or policy makers, the rules of the game change. In that realm there is more at stake than simply communicating one's emotions; the language that is used has specific and enforceable consequences, and as such there is a higher standard applied of what language can be used.
Despite agreeing with you that the execs of Enron etc should spend time in jail, I do not agree that this should be the fate of people swapping files online, even copyrighted files. I feel that swapping copyrighted material at this level should remain a civil offense. Because theft is not a civil offense, I don't feel that usage of the term is appropriate in terms of its consequences.
Additionally, I don't believe that online swapping fits the definition of theft to begin with. Theft is the removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Online file swappers neither remove personal property nor do they intend to deprive anyone of songs. I acknowledge that this by itself doesn't mean that file swappers are in the legal or moral clear. But to equate them to the Enron execs would be foolish.
Towards the end of his presidency, Jimmy Carter got quite a low approval rating in polls. Various spin doctors gleefully commented that Jimmy had even lower ratings than those of Richard Nixon. The problem was that they were comparing public distaste for Carter's ineptitude with public loathing for Nixon's criminal behavior. These distinctions matter.
As others have pointed out, distributing free cds is copyright infringement, not theft. Theft is when someone loses possession of actual (not potential) wealth due to the activities of others. If we redefine theft as the deprivation of potential wealth, then suddenly we have a world where you are a thief if you choose to walk down a road other than the one where a hotdog vendor is waiting for customers.
Slashdot Mirror
If downloading IP for free either removes the financial incentive for companies to litter the world with it or gives said companies a notion of what people really like vs what they'll tolerate having crammed at them, then I'd consider that a step forward.
Unauthorized use of the source material gives media companies something to point to and cry out for the need to protect their IP and results in the kind of insane laws currently being passed in the US.
My suspicion is that the insane laws in the US and elsewhere would not stop being passed if perfect control of IP were to be achieved. The goals of commercial entities are to maximize profit, no matter how much profit has already been made and no matter what the cost to the public. P2P networks gave corporations the inroads and ideas on how to negotiate for the insane laws, but if there is a demise to P2P it will not sate commercialism's thirst for maximum profit and maximum control.
Purchasing an IP work without knowing its contents does happen, perhaps as in buying a book without having read it. I'm thinking more of works whos contents are known: common songs, known movies, etc. When songs are played incessantly on the radio in public places, malls, bathrooms, bars, in a push to popularize the song, I regard it as polluting the commons. The media establishment is not trying to give consumers what they want, or educate them or better them; they are only trying to gather as big a pile of money as possible, and they don't care at what cost this comes to the general populace. Hence they have impoverished our cultural world, pushing krap and artificially restricting a legacy of cultural wealth. That, combined specifically with the ease with which songs can now be duplicated, makes me regard such pollution as a justification for citizens to put such songs to whatever purposes they would like.
The above proposition would only feel fair to me if a potentially IP-consuming citizen had the right to never see advertisements or enticements for IP that the citizen has indicated they do not want to behold. For instance, billboards (which should IMO be thought of as owned by the public, like the airwaves) are typically used to hammer messages into people until they get bored into going along for the ride. Likewise for network television ads, radio, magazines, etc. If the creators of IP want us to respect a model where that IP commands a price, then the minimum I would require is that I am empowered to choose to live in a world that is not littered and strewn at every turn with intellectual garbage related to the hawking of said IP. For this reason I cannot go along with the proposition above. If someone litters my lawn with coconuts, I am going to feel the right to pick one up and own it.
Yeah, I hear ya. Sometimes those things don't work out quite as well as we'd wish. Gee, it seems that you and I have a lot in common... both single, both open to the notion of meeting that special someone, neither of us busy this Friday night, you love paying for meals and I love having them paid for. Just as long as you don't think I'd owe you anything for the meal. And we don't have to get sexual or anything. Unless that's what you want. Is that what you want? Because I can do that. Oy, the headgames and the stress. You know, this just isn't working out. Can we be friends?
Question: does a bootable cd, like this one or knoppix, mean it's either more difficult or impossible for remote hackers to get a root kit into the system?
Agreed. He's confusing me: is he or is't he suing Linus?
Maybe we could just shorten it to "scod".
I agree, and see a similarity between SCO's increasingly dramatic antics and those of North Korea. When a week goes by and Linus hasn't responded, SCO will start talking about turning linux into "a raging sea of fire".
I imagined for a moment that the CIA had finally gotten around to equipping all their agents with stealth Segways.
The villains in the article are not Microsoft but the contracting agencies (Volt, Excell, etc); they are the ones instigating the anti-worker contract terms and suing for their enforcement.
because who doesn't hate MS, right?
There are many reasons to dislike Microsoft, and - having endured their effects for years and carefully analyzed them many times - I subscribe to quite a few of them. Your implication that disliking Microsoft must simply be a reflex, along with your labeling of the article as "union rag", doesn't make you out to be any more thoughtful or intelligent than how you'd like to portray those who *are* in fact engaged in meaningful discussions on the topic.
I can see it. Whereas now when you're watching live tv you can get messages saying "Tivo needs to change the channel in order to record a show you've scheduled. Ok to change?", tivo could instead give a message "Tivo needs to change the channel in order to change the channel to the channel you just specified with your remote. Ok to change?" (Options "Yes, go ahead and change it" and "No, it was rash of me to hit that button and I've changed my mind".)
I suppose people would still have a hard time rolling their own tivo because of the value Tivo would continue to add with their program guide subscription.
When money becomes trackable, perhaps even beyond the ability of a microwaving to fix, I will make it a regular habit to ask friends and acquaintences if they'd like to enter into an ongoing money swap arrangement. People engaged in this practice will make it a habit to carry, say, $200 in cash, and will make it a point to swap bills every so often. As long as this is an ongoing practice, it's not even necessary to efficiently randomize who has what bills; all you need to do when questioned by Homeland Security about hookers/dope/etc is profess to be a money swapper, and offer to call numerous witnesses to that fact; ergo, anyone could have been the person who plunked down bills that the atm originally dispensed to you. And the social practice of swapping bills will serve to draw like-minded people together.
Looks like I'll be making some payments in quarters from now on.
congress persons...
and other payments in flaming bags of dog poo.
I feel obligated to point out that violation of the GPL is not stealing... it is copyright/license infringement.
Slashdot discussions hold various examples of folks who refer to p2p copyrighted file sharing as "stealing". Some people (with whom I agree) then respond that this is not an example of stealing, it is an example of copyright infringement. This clarification is not intended to condone (or condemn) the sharing of copyrighted material; the point is to not sink to the same level of newspeak as the RIAA/MPAA which claims (for example) that not watching commercials is "stealing". The reason this is important is that it has everything to do with what legal analysis and remedies can and should be brought to bear on the matter.
When something has been stolen, there are clear answers to the questions (1) who has lost, and (2) how much. It is in the world of copyright infringement that these questions become enormously debatable.
AFAIK you only have to release the source code to your software if you release the binaries. This may seem like a pedantic point, but in fact it makes a profound difference for any business that wants to go the "service bureau" route. Suppose your business consists of processing digital image files that customers submit. If the software that does this is built from GPL'd components, you nevertheless do *not* need to release the source code as long as it runs only on your servers. If instead you release a consumer version of the software, that is the point at which you must release the source as well.
I don't think the parent post was "wound up", and I happen to agree with its sentiments. Supposing that it's perfectly in line with the GPL to restrict access to formal requests, we are nevertheless faced with the question of WHY someone trying to create a community would not just simply put the source on the server. The parent post's points regarding how open source processes result in bug fixes and leverage disparate talent efficiently are spot-on. Now that I know there aren't tons of eyeballs looking at the source for open zaurus, there's no reason for me to believe it doesn't have some kind of major flaw, intentional back door, or tendency to become abandonware if the one person working on it decides to close up shop and do something else. Because these questions are important to me, I will not be getting a zaurus until such a time as these issues are resolved.
In unrelated news, another local residence was burgled. This time the thieves absconded with an entire box of Super Sugar Crisp Cereal. "What kind of monsters would DO such a thing?" sobbed the distraught homeowner, whos identity was being kept private until next of kin could be notified.
For example, terrorists have unfettered access on information to build bombs and where to drop them to achieve maximal damage... but they'll be thwarted because everyone else knows that the terrorists are building those bombs and will stop them.
In my opinion, the above terrorist/counter-terrorist scenario places too much faith in total information as ultimately helping "the good cause". To continue forward with the scenario a bit: the terrorists are able to find out precisely how others are planning to stop them, and take counter measures. And so on. It seems far from clear where the one-upsmanship might end.
The other thing I see ignored is the notion that we may not be psychologically equipped to deal with knowing everything about each other. There's the mundane: knowing whenever anyone fornicates, masturbates, etc. What about those who don't believe in the manner in which these activities are conducted? For that matter, what about the religious extremists who don't tolerate those whose beliefs are different, even today? The only thing currently preventing extremists from displaying even more intolerance today may be their lack of information about who happens to disagree with them.
Because not all laws are just, and not all unjust laws have reasonable ways of changing them. Someone may not have the time and energy to mount a campaign. A campaign that does get started may have no effect, and there is generally no fixed timetable in which to tell when an outcome will emerge. An eventual failure of the campaign to change anything may have nothing to do with the merits of the issue or the alignment of a campaign with prescribed reform guidelines; all that's needed is for a politician to be listening to corporate money or to "anti-terrorism" directives.
Having a box that records five seconds worth of data is not a problem.
Not necessarily agreed, but even stipulating the point there's no guarantee that five seconds will remain all that gets recorded. It's likely that five seconds will become longer, and that the types of data recorded will increase in number. What about when the data recorded includes your cellphone conversations? Your non-cellphone conversations? Your gps location? The rfid tag info of the clothing of your passengers? What you chose to listen to on the radio? Video of you? If these sound far fetched to you, think about the Patriot act and related political ongoings.
I believe a fair legal system would uphold your ability to do so, but this sounds suspiciously like the very kind of thing the DMCA is used to prevent. Coincidentally enough, the ability (or not) to modify cars is used as an illustration in The DMCA in plain English:
The article claims the DMCA currently applies only to entertainment products, but I don't know that to be true. As covered recently in slashdot, the DMCA is being used to prevent 3rd parties from manufacturing ink cartridges for a certain kind of printer. And if there is any language in the DMCA that suggests it doesn't apply to xyz, I would not be at all surprised to see such language changed.The "horrible system" mantra in your post is your contribution to this discussion, not the parent post's, yet you repeat it accusatorily as though to ascribe it to the parent. This tactic bears similarities to propaganda, not reasonable discussion.
The values of this country which you claim to hold so dear might just disappear if reasonable critiques of the politicial situation are met with disbelief and calls for abject adulation.
Interesting example. An open question is: precisely who will lose, and how much? In thievery, both of these questions have relatively clear answers. For file swapping, it is anything but clear. I know people who have bought albums they would never have otherwise bought because they were exposed to music on p2p that they wouldn't have heard otherwise. I also know people who download songs they enjoy but would never have paid for them. And there is the question of to what degree the recording industry's distribution monopoly has deprived other business models of revenue; has the recording industry therefore stolen?
If you think that what those execs did was wrong and deserves to be roundly punished, then we are in complete agreement. And - for the sake of an informal discussion between us which is without legal consequence - I'm even ok with referring to what they did as stealing, because I believe that the intent of such language is to convey one's disgust with what happened (and rightfully so). But if you and I are promoted to judges or policy makers, the rules of the game change. In that realm there is more at stake than simply communicating one's emotions; the language that is used has specific and enforceable consequences, and as such there is a higher standard applied of what language can be used.
Despite agreeing with you that the execs of Enron etc should spend time in jail, I do not agree that this should be the fate of people swapping files online, even copyrighted files. I feel that swapping copyrighted material at this level should remain a civil offense. Because theft is not a civil offense, I don't feel that usage of the term is appropriate in terms of its consequences.
Additionally, I don't believe that online swapping fits the definition of theft to begin with. Theft is the removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Online file swappers neither remove personal property nor do they intend to deprive anyone of songs. I acknowledge that this by itself doesn't mean that file swappers are in the legal or moral clear. But to equate them to the Enron execs would be foolish.
Towards the end of his presidency, Jimmy Carter got quite a low approval rating in polls. Various spin doctors gleefully commented that Jimmy had even lower ratings than those of Richard Nixon. The problem was that they were comparing public distaste for Carter's ineptitude with public loathing for Nixon's criminal behavior. These distinctions matter.
I first read this as "creative director of the Richard Simmons group". Oh my.
As others have pointed out, distributing free cds is copyright infringement, not theft. Theft is when someone loses possession of actual (not potential) wealth due to the activities of others. If we redefine theft as the deprivation of potential wealth, then suddenly we have a world where you are a thief if you choose to walk down a road other than the one where a hotdog vendor is waiting for customers.