You are an idiot. First of all, they don't need to identify the supposedly "infringing" user before they file a claim. That is what a John Doe lawsuit is for. This is why Verizon was fighting the RIAA, they wanted the RIAA to file a John Doe lawsuit.
Secondly, the RIAA had evidence??? WTF kind of crack are you smoking? They've been spamming the internet with bot created DMCA complaints. That is not evidence, that is fraud.
Yes, and a subpoena before this RIAA crap was something that could only be court ordered,... That is what's shitting people. It's giving law enforcement rights to a body that is NOT a law enforcement agency.
It's worse. Either you live in a crappy country, or you don't understand the legal system. In my country, even law enforcement has to get a court order for the kind of information RIAA is asking for. If the company sucks, they'll just give the info away, but if they have their customer's interests at heart, they will only give it away if legally required.
I'm not quite sure how you're supposed to send the mail while offline though.
It's called a queue. The mail client stacks up messages to send. When you go online, the client sends all the queued mail.
I don't know why they wouldn't count email in this study, wouldn't it be more interesting to know how much time the kids spend on internet activities instead of how long their computer is connected to an ISP? Then again, since Yahoo paid for the survey, I suppose they only want information about the Web...
Either way, this should show why the MPAA are so anti internet. People are spending more time on the internet and less time watching TV and movies. Even if it's looking up movie reviews and celebrity gossip. I bet Entertainment Tonight's ratings are dying!;-)
First of all, there are more than two sides to this story. Why do so many assume this fight is between the "I should get all my music for free" crowd and "everyone is infringing the RIAA's rights, so the RIAA should be allowed complete control over the internet and all computers!"
I can't even see where the EFF is saying people should take music for free. At least not in the linked urls. Their "Let the Music Play" page says: "The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating artists and copyright holders."
The Digital mix party mostly seems to be about introducing new artists and sampling with the Creative Commons license. There appears to be some "illegal art" crap, though I don't see where it says what kind--the guy might just be using company logos to make a political point. Though I found this statement at illegal-art.org interesting:
The laws governing "intellectual property" have grown so expansive in recent years that artists need legal experts to sort them all out. Borrowing from another artwork--as jazz musicians did in the 1930s and Looney Tunes illustrators did in 1940s--will now land you in court. If the current copyright laws had been in effect back in the day, whole genres such as collage, hiphop, and Pop Art might have never have existed.
The irony here couldn't be more stark. Rooted in the U.S. Constitution, copyright was originally intended to facilitate the exchange of ideas but is now being used to stifle it.
I don't really care if some piker doesn't want me to sample his work. Fine, I won't use it except to respond to his comments and demonstrate how stupid he is. In fact, this is one of the major reasons we have fair use.[1] If you're not allowed to quote excerpts or show samples of a work, it is quite difficult to comment on it.
There are far too many people taking and not enough creating as it is.
There are plenty of people creating, you just don't want to see it. Why don't you walk out of the RIAA's castle for a few minutes. Maybe you'll learn something.
Uh oh. I just sampled part of your post in my reply. Does this mean I should be arrested?
[1] Real fair use, not the "nothing is fair use" stance of the RIAA nor the "everything is fair use" stance of warez hounds.
Your post seemed to be under the assumption that everyone on Slashdot is the same guy. Using a "well then Microsoft should be able to grab some GPLed code" response to a AC who may very well have nothing to do with GNU (or open source) is going to insult a lot of people on Slashdot. From that post, I imagine the AC probably doesn't care, he may very well be distributing GPLed software, no source, under his name alongside a huge warez collection.
You had a good point, but that sounded like a standard MS shill post. Do you see why some might think you are trolling?
It seems too many people are looking at DRM from the perspective of a consumer. If you just sit on your ass all day and watch TV, DRM won't effect you too much. [1]
The biggest problem will be for people who produce their own content. If you want to write you own program, you'll need a key from the DRM consortium. Good luck getting that key if you're not a large company. If you want to edit videos/photos, record sound, write a book, draw, or whatever with your computer, you'll have no choice but to use programs approved by the DRM consortium.
Not to mention the DRM consortium will have huge amounts of power to control your computer. "There are too many people with pyrate files, we have to add this little utility which deletes such unsavory things from your computer." They are also going to use it to delete things they just don't like. Have a negative review of a hollywood movie or a Microsoft product? Hmmm...it just disappeared. Where did it go? Have any pr0n? Someone working in the "anti-piracy" office just "saved their soul." Goodbye pr0n! The US government decides there are too many subversive documents on the internet, so they put pressure on (or make deals with) the consortium. No more talking bad about the US! As an added bonus, you might be raided too! There are countless examples of how a DRM system can be abused.
[1] There will be times when you won't be able to view content you paid for. At least 90% of the copy protection I have come in contact with caused problems on a regular basis. I don't like paying for something, then not being able to use it at all...or seeing the brightness of the thing fade in and out because the copy protection interferes with my TV.
They could already have an internet based system going. I doubt it would cost much to mod a DVD, Tivo, or video game console to use DRM and add an ethernet port. They are pushing for DRM in generic computers.
Why?
They want to stop any potential competition. When anyone can edit videos on a sub $1000 computer, they have lost. When any idiot can show his funny stunt to thousands of people on the internet (Why watch Jackass?), they have lost. When small budget independent films can get as much play and distribution as the big budget hollywood ones, they have lost. When all the people who have seen the latest "hit" movie can give a review about how crappy it is, Hollywood has lost.
"Content providers" want to use DRM to take away people's rights. No one is stopping them from developing a system to distribute their "content." They are trying to coerce the people into giving away their ability to use a generic computer and free speech rights. They are trying to convince governments to mandate a DRM system which big media can control.
I wish no one would mod this guy up. Look at his posting history. He's obviously some sort of troll. An entertaining one, but still a troll. Not to mention, Microsoft fanboys and PHBs will probably see this as "proof" Linux "is better than" Windows.
Disney wants to get rid of VHS and DVD. They want to go back to before the VCR. Where everyone has to pay for each viewing of a movie, and video recording, editing and copying equipment was expensive and hard to acquire. They are trying to push DRM.
There may come a day when you want to make a movie or record some video, but can't because either you have to pay some huge fee for a DRM license/key or you are not allowed at all because only big movie studios have "legitimate" reasons to own video cameras. Most likely they'll start with the former, and slowly creep into the latter.
They are not doing this for the customers, they are doing it so they can price gouge and limit competition.
Are you saying you don't want to watch movies on your computer screen? Don't you realize just about any computer's display is far better than analog TV? According to my communications book, NTSC analog TV is 428x339 60 Hz interlaced. Unless you're using an Atari 130XE, that's quite bad.
As to "they don't get it", they don't. I'm not paying money to a company who wants to take control of my computer. I don't want to pay money to a company who is trying to extend their copyrights forever, yet they will wait until the copyrights of others expire so they don't have to pay royalties. There are plenty of other nasty things they do.
So you are saying Universities should be sued because they offer internet service to their students? They do this so students will have another resource to do research and work on projects. Maybe they should be forced to burn their libraries down too, because we all know some books have illegal content, so why take the risk?
Also, where are they suing file-sharers. The only cases I've heard of were the ones where they sued some students for making generic search engines, and put on copyright infringement as an afterthought. If you would've bothered to read the article, you'd know they weren't suing anyone here, they just gathered the names and addresses of a bunch of P2P users without judicial review. For all any of us know, none of these people were sharing the RIAA's music. Maybe some RIAA employees just wanted some random people to stalk.
The people behind calling copyright infringement "theft" are the same ones who are trying to distort copyright, trademark, and patent law into "intellectual property" where people own basic ideas.
If you write a novel about cybernetic kitties trying to take over the world, and without any knowledge whatsoever of your novel, I write a similar one and finish it ten minutes after you did, it does not mean I stole anything from you. Yet the entertainment cartel would say I did.
If I start an internet coffee house and call it "Java House", and you created a programming language called "Java", it doesn't mean I am infringing your trademark. Yet Sun Microsystems would say I did.
If you patent the basic idea of typing in a credit card number into a web form to take an order, this does not mean you have a valid patent. Yet Amazon would say you did.
Just because idiots can write crap claims down on a peice of paper doesn't mean they are right.
So this is a design flaw in DirectX 9? I suppose it must be since the article said it should be fixed in 9.1. It shouldn't be too surprising considering who writes the DirectX "standard."
It seems like you said basicly the same thing I did, except using more words. Congress isn't supposed to pass an unconstitutional law, and if they do, the courts are supposed strike it down. I was responding to rritterson saying a lower court is bound to a law congress writes reguardless of its constitutionality. I was saying all courts are supposed to hold the Constitution above all other laws. Am I wrong?
It's easy to get anything you want on the air if you're a freebander!;-)
BTW, the movies studios own most of the TV networks--at least all the over the air ones I know about. ABC - Disney. Fox - News Corp. WB - AOL/TW. UPN/CBS - Paramount/Viacom. That is why they're offering to show the ads for free.
The theaters already show about 20 minutes of advertisements before each movie, and this is after I already paid to see the thing! They waste 20 minutes of my time for what, a nickel? Now they're going to add a 65 second PSA to the wasted time. Don't forget, the people going to the movie are paying customers. If they were downloading movies off of the internet instead of seeing it in the theater, they wouldn't be there.
This makes as much sense as forcing patrons of a retail store to listen to a 65 second speech about how shoplifing is bad before they are allowed to pay the cashier.
I go to movies for the chance I may see something insightful. They don't deliver that very well, and they want me to sit through a bunch of commercials as well. What point is there in going to a movie anymore? The entertainment cartel just wants to waste my time no matter how much I pay. I used to go to some movies because I thought the companies who made them weren't so bad. I don't see how wasting the time of paying customers would help their cause--assuming stoping copyright infringement is their real motive. Then again, I suppose if you're paying money to a MPAA company, you're an unwitting collaborator to their fascist plots. Screw them all.
First, no law Congress writes can override the constitution--unless it is an amendment. Last time I checked, the DMCA wasn't a constitutional amendment.
Second, just because some joker at the RIAA writes down a username or IP address on a piece of paper doesn't mean the person on the other end of the connection was really infringing copyrights. If the person wasn't commiting a crime, you just gave private information to the RIAA without just cause. They don't let police do this--well when they were still following the constitution.;-) This is why a judge is required to look at the request--to make a resonable effort to guarantee the process isn't being abused. How do you know a "copyright owner" isn't really a serial killer or stalker looking for a next victim?
According to GPL advocates, this former M$ programmer is COMPLETELY liable for everything that happened.
So, you are saying the person who committed the crime isn't responsible, and the people he defrauded are? This doesn't mean anyone is allowed to use that source once they find out it is tainted. What planet are you from? Let me guess: the United States Soviet Republic.
This is why modern business societies require public registration and busines licenses for entering the economy
I'm sure the Nazis did too. Maybe/. should require public registration and business licenses for posting to their site. ACs are all trolls now.
This is a bogus arguement the FSF uses to coerce people into signing away copyright to them. They could just as easily hire lawyers to fight for other Free/Open Source software owners as they could for themselves.
Why whould they do anything about this? They hate Linux--especially Stallman. He's pissed because Linux stole the thunder from his Hurd kernel. The FSF were probably cheering when they heard the news about SCO.
but since when is a chartered plane your private area anyway?
Am I missing something? I thought a chartered plane means the customer hires a plane and pilot to fly somewhere. How is this different than, say renting an apartment? Should your landlord be allowed to put video cameras in your apartment? After all, maybe you are assembling bombs in there. You might even be having sex in it. Eeewww. Disgusting. Landlords should track the sexual habits of all their residents (even the married ones), then make the videos public and evict them. Why not? It's their building. They should be allowed to do anything they want.
If I hire an entire plane myself, not only should I be granted privacy, I should be allowed to have wild sex in it too.;-)
This guy was implying people should "support" Freenet by uploading and downloading a bunch of RIAA crap music. How will this help? It'll just give the anti-freedom of speech crowd more fodder to bring Freenet (and systems like it) down. It'll also make Freenet far less useful because the caches will be turning over quite frequently. Freenet was obviously not designed to hold huge archives of music. Why should it?
I don't think you understand why parking tickets exists. Yes, people do want parking tickets, but not because of the government revenue. It's because if cops didn't issue parking tickets, then everyone would just park anywhere--including the middle of the road or use up two stalls. It would be hell trying to drive around all those parked cars. It would be hell trying to find parking spaces in a lot which should be half full, but all the spaces are used up by rude drivers.
It would be unfair if all car owners had to pay a "parking violation" tax because it is assumed everyone will break parking laws, just like it is unfair that all buyers of CD-burners and blank CDs are forced to pay a "copyright" tax because it is assumed they will violate copyright laws.
Let me guess the filenames of those "infringing" files: My_friend_Avril_Smith.jpg, Dog_barking.mp3, Michael's_first_steps.mpg, Jenny_Jackson_doing_the_chicken_dance.avi. Yeah, these nasty pyrates should get life!
Except Freenet doesn't support large files very well, and all files only live for a short amount of time--depending upon the size of everyone's cache. It also doesn't support searching as far as I can tell.
Freenet was made to prevent censorship and promote freedom of speech. At its current state, it doesn't even seem to do that very well. It wasn't designed to swap music. Even if someone finds a way, you'll probably only be able to download Pop 40 songs anyway. You may as well listen to the radio.
Slashdot Mirror
You are an idiot. First of all, they don't need to identify the supposedly "infringing" user before they file a claim. That is what a John Doe lawsuit is for. This is why Verizon was fighting the RIAA, they wanted the RIAA to file a John Doe lawsuit.
Secondly, the RIAA had evidence??? WTF kind of crack are you smoking? They've been spamming the internet with bot created DMCA complaints. That is not evidence, that is fraud.
It's worse. Either you live in a crappy country, or you don't understand the legal system. In my country, even law enforcement has to get a court order for the kind of information RIAA is asking for. If the company sucks, they'll just give the info away, but if they have their customer's interests at heart, they will only give it away if legally required.
It's called a queue. The mail client stacks up messages to send. When you go online, the client sends all the queued mail.
I don't know why they wouldn't count email in this study, wouldn't it be more interesting to know how much time the kids spend on internet activities instead of how long their computer is connected to an ISP? Then again, since Yahoo paid for the survey, I suppose they only want information about the Web...
Either way, this should show why the MPAA are so anti internet. People are spending more time on the internet and less time watching TV and movies. Even if it's looking up movie reviews and celebrity gossip. I bet Entertainment Tonight's ratings are dying! ;-)
First of all, there are more than two sides to this story. Why do so many assume this fight is between the "I should get all my music for free" crowd and "everyone is infringing the RIAA's rights, so the RIAA should be allowed complete control over the internet and all computers!"
I can't even see where the EFF is saying people should take music for free. At least not in the linked urls. Their "Let the Music Play" page says: "The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating artists and copyright holders."
The Digital mix party mostly seems to be about introducing new artists and sampling with the Creative Commons license. There appears to be some "illegal art" crap, though I don't see where it says what kind--the guy might just be using company logos to make a political point. Though I found this statement at illegal-art.org interesting:
I don't really care if some piker doesn't want me to sample his work. Fine, I won't use it except to respond to his comments and demonstrate how stupid he is. In fact, this is one of the major reasons we have fair use.[1] If you're not allowed to quote excerpts or show samples of a work, it is quite difficult to comment on it.
There are plenty of people creating, you just don't want to see it. Why don't you walk out of the RIAA's castle for a few minutes. Maybe you'll learn something.
Uh oh. I just sampled part of your post in my reply. Does this mean I should be arrested?
[1] Real fair use, not the "nothing is fair use" stance of the RIAA nor the "everything is fair use" stance of warez hounds.
Your post seemed to be under the assumption that everyone on Slashdot is the same guy. Using a "well then Microsoft should be able to grab some GPLed code" response to a AC who may very well have nothing to do with GNU (or open source) is going to insult a lot of people on Slashdot. From that post, I imagine the AC probably doesn't care, he may very well be distributing GPLed software, no source, under his name alongside a huge warez collection.
You had a good point, but that sounded like a standard MS shill post. Do you see why some might think you are trolling?
It seems too many people are looking at DRM from the perspective of a consumer. If you just sit on your ass all day and watch TV, DRM won't effect you too much. [1]
The biggest problem will be for people who produce their own content. If you want to write you own program, you'll need a key from the DRM consortium. Good luck getting that key if you're not a large company. If you want to edit videos/photos, record sound, write a book, draw, or whatever with your computer, you'll have no choice but to use programs approved by the DRM consortium.
Not to mention the DRM consortium will have huge amounts of power to control your computer. "There are too many people with pyrate files, we have to add this little utility which deletes such unsavory things from your computer." They are also going to use it to delete things they just don't like. Have a negative review of a hollywood movie or a Microsoft product? Hmmm...it just disappeared. Where did it go? Have any pr0n? Someone working in the "anti-piracy" office just "saved their soul." Goodbye pr0n! The US government decides there are too many subversive documents on the internet, so they put pressure on (or make deals with) the consortium. No more talking bad about the US! As an added bonus, you might be raided too! There are countless examples of how a DRM system can be abused.
[1] There will be times when you won't be able to view content you paid for. At least 90% of the copy protection I have come in contact with caused problems on a regular basis. I don't like paying for something, then not being able to use it at all...or seeing the brightness of the thing fade in and out because the copy protection interferes with my TV.
They could already have an internet based system going. I doubt it would cost much to mod a DVD, Tivo, or video game console to use DRM and add an ethernet port. They are pushing for DRM in generic computers.
Why?
They want to stop any potential competition. When anyone can edit videos on a sub $1000 computer, they have lost. When any idiot can show his funny stunt to thousands of people on the internet (Why watch Jackass?), they have lost. When small budget independent films can get as much play and distribution as the big budget hollywood ones, they have lost. When all the people who have seen the latest "hit" movie can give a review about how crappy it is, Hollywood has lost.
"Content providers" want to use DRM to take away people's rights. No one is stopping them from developing a system to distribute their "content." They are trying to coerce the people into giving away their ability to use a generic computer and free speech rights. They are trying to convince governments to mandate a DRM system which big media can control.
I wish no one would mod this guy up. Look at his posting history. He's obviously some sort of troll. An entertaining one, but still a troll. Not to mention, Microsoft fanboys and PHBs will probably see this as "proof" Linux "is better than" Windows.
Disney wants to get rid of VHS and DVD. They want to go back to before the VCR. Where everyone has to pay for each viewing of a movie, and video recording, editing and copying equipment was expensive and hard to acquire. They are trying to push DRM.
There may come a day when you want to make a movie or record some video, but can't because either you have to pay some huge fee for a DRM license/key or you are not allowed at all because only big movie studios have "legitimate" reasons to own video cameras. Most likely they'll start with the former, and slowly creep into the latter.
They are not doing this for the customers, they are doing it so they can price gouge and limit competition.
Are you saying you don't want to watch movies on your computer screen? Don't you realize just about any computer's display is far better than analog TV? According to my communications book, NTSC analog TV is 428x339 60 Hz interlaced. Unless you're using an Atari 130XE, that's quite bad.
As to "they don't get it", they don't. I'm not paying money to a company who wants to take control of my computer. I don't want to pay money to a company who is trying to extend their copyrights forever, yet they will wait until the copyrights of others expire so they don't have to pay royalties. There are plenty of other nasty things they do.
So you are saying Universities should be sued because they offer internet service to their students? They do this so students will have another resource to do research and work on projects. Maybe they should be forced to burn their libraries down too, because we all know some books have illegal content, so why take the risk?
Also, where are they suing file-sharers. The only cases I've heard of were the ones where they sued some students for making generic search engines, and put on copyright infringement as an afterthought. If you would've bothered to read the article, you'd know they weren't suing anyone here, they just gathered the names and addresses of a bunch of P2P users without judicial review. For all any of us know, none of these people were sharing the RIAA's music. Maybe some RIAA employees just wanted some random people to stalk.
The people behind calling copyright infringement "theft" are the same ones who are trying to distort copyright, trademark, and patent law into "intellectual property" where people own basic ideas.
If you write a novel about cybernetic kitties trying to take over the world, and without any knowledge whatsoever of your novel, I write a similar one and finish it ten minutes after you did, it does not mean I stole anything from you. Yet the entertainment cartel would say I did.
If I start an internet coffee house and call it "Java House", and you created a programming language called "Java", it doesn't mean I am infringing your trademark. Yet Sun Microsystems would say I did.
If you patent the basic idea of typing in a credit card number into a web form to take an order, this does not mean you have a valid patent. Yet Amazon would say you did.
Just because idiots can write crap claims down on a peice of paper doesn't mean they are right.
So this is a design flaw in DirectX 9? I suppose it must be since the article said it should be fixed in 9.1. It shouldn't be too surprising considering who writes the DirectX "standard."
It seems like you said basicly the same thing I did, except using more words. Congress isn't supposed to pass an unconstitutional law, and if they do, the courts are supposed strike it down. I was responding to rritterson saying a lower court is bound to a law congress writes reguardless of its constitutionality. I was saying all courts are supposed to hold the Constitution above all other laws. Am I wrong?
It's easy to get anything you want on the air if you're a freebander! ;-)
BTW, the movies studios own most of the TV networks--at least all the over the air ones I know about. ABC - Disney. Fox - News Corp. WB - AOL/TW. UPN/CBS - Paramount/Viacom. That is why they're offering to show the ads for free.
The theaters already show about 20 minutes of advertisements before each movie, and this is after I already paid to see the thing! They waste 20 minutes of my time for what, a nickel? Now they're going to add a 65 second PSA to the wasted time. Don't forget, the people going to the movie are paying customers. If they were downloading movies off of the internet instead of seeing it in the theater, they wouldn't be there.
This makes as much sense as forcing patrons of a retail store to listen to a 65 second speech about how shoplifing is bad before they are allowed to pay the cashier.
I go to movies for the chance I may see something insightful. They don't deliver that very well, and they want me to sit through a bunch of commercials as well. What point is there in going to a movie anymore? The entertainment cartel just wants to waste my time no matter how much I pay. I used to go to some movies because I thought the companies who made them weren't so bad. I don't see how wasting the time of paying customers would help their cause--assuming stoping copyright infringement is their real motive. Then again, I suppose if you're paying money to a MPAA company, you're an unwitting collaborator to their fascist plots. Screw them all.
Two things:
First, no law Congress writes can override the constitution--unless it is an amendment. Last time I checked, the DMCA wasn't a constitutional amendment.
Second, just because some joker at the RIAA writes down a username or IP address on a piece of paper doesn't mean the person on the other end of the connection was really infringing copyrights. If the person wasn't commiting a crime, you just gave private information to the RIAA without just cause. They don't let police do this--well when they were still following the constitution. ;-) This is why a judge is required to look at the request--to make a resonable effort to guarantee the process isn't being abused. How do you know a "copyright owner" isn't really a serial killer or stalker looking for a next victim?
So, you are saying the person who committed the crime isn't responsible, and the people he defrauded are? This doesn't mean anyone is allowed to use that source once they find out it is tainted. What planet are you from? Let me guess: the United States Soviet Republic.
I'm sure the Nazis did too. Maybe /. should require public registration and business licenses for posting to their site. ACs are all trolls now.
This is a bogus arguement the FSF uses to coerce people into signing away copyright to them. They could just as easily hire lawyers to fight for other Free/Open Source software owners as they could for themselves.
Why whould they do anything about this? They hate Linux--especially Stallman. He's pissed because Linux stole the thunder from his Hurd kernel. The FSF were probably cheering when they heard the news about SCO.
Am I missing something? I thought a chartered plane means the customer hires a plane and pilot to fly somewhere. How is this different than, say renting an apartment? Should your landlord be allowed to put video cameras in your apartment? After all, maybe you are assembling bombs in there. You might even be having sex in it. Eeewww. Disgusting. Landlords should track the sexual habits of all their residents (even the married ones), then make the videos public and evict them. Why not? It's their building. They should be allowed to do anything they want.
If I hire an entire plane myself, not only should I be granted privacy, I should be allowed to have wild sex in it too. ;-)
This guy was implying people should "support" Freenet by uploading and downloading a bunch of RIAA crap music. How will this help? It'll just give the anti-freedom of speech crowd more fodder to bring Freenet (and systems like it) down. It'll also make Freenet far less useful because the caches will be turning over quite frequently. Freenet was obviously not designed to hold huge archives of music. Why should it?
I don't think you understand why parking tickets exists. Yes, people do want parking tickets, but not because of the government revenue. It's because if cops didn't issue parking tickets, then everyone would just park anywhere--including the middle of the road or use up two stalls. It would be hell trying to drive around all those parked cars. It would be hell trying to find parking spaces in a lot which should be half full, but all the spaces are used up by rude drivers.
It would be unfair if all car owners had to pay a "parking violation" tax because it is assumed everyone will break parking laws, just like it is unfair that all buyers of CD-burners and blank CDs are forced to pay a "copyright" tax because it is assumed they will violate copyright laws.
Why don't you go to his friggin site and download a song? They're perfect for video game music.
Idiot.
Let me guess the filenames of those "infringing" files: My_friend_Avril_Smith.jpg, Dog_barking.mp3, Michael's_first_steps.mpg, Jenny_Jackson_doing_the_chicken_dance.avi. Yeah, these nasty pyrates should get life!
Except Freenet doesn't support large files very well, and all files only live for a short amount of time--depending upon the size of everyone's cache. It also doesn't support searching as far as I can tell.
Freenet was made to prevent censorship and promote freedom of speech. At its current state, it doesn't even seem to do that very well. It wasn't designed to swap music. Even if someone finds a way, you'll probably only be able to download Pop 40 songs anyway. You may as well listen to the radio.