A "Neutralization Program" to locate and incapacitate those involved in the attack. Taking out the Taliban was, in fact, a good start. I'm unclear on how to draw a straight line to Iraq from there, other than with a ruler.
And yet, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Osama is a Saudi prince by birth. Saudi charities were funding terrorism. Saudi Arabia makes their women wear hoods, teach and endorse radical fundamentalist Islamic religion, and have no problem with slavery. Afghanistan was just a terrorist camp ground. By the time we got there, the terrorists were gone and the Taliban was left holding the bag.
So where did we go after Afghanistan? That's right, Iraq. Who's next? Iran maybe? We aren't going to win the war on terrorism, because we keep invading the wrong countries.
Inducing piracy makes selling a Linux PC illegal. Another day, another instance of Copyright trumps 1st Amendment. I must have misread that 'Congress shall make no law' part:-/
Looking back now, it feels completely absurd that anyone would complain about an operating system company including a browser with the operating system.
Looking back now, it feels completely absurd that anyone would not complain about an operating system company illegally restricting what browsers the OEMs were allowed to bundle with their systems.
Are you trying to run Windows only software, old software, games?
Windows only sw: Assuming a Mac equivalent won't do or can't be found, you're probably gonna have to go VPC here. Continue waiting for MS to deliver a G5 compatible version.:-/ Or try Bochs if it can't wait. Likely to be slower than VPC, but better than nothing.
If old sw: I presume this is to access old files in proprietary formats? If that is the case, get GraphicConverter, Stuffit, MacLinkPlus, and possibly SoundApp on Classic. Those four apps should cover practically every old file format in existence. Some video files will require the use of classic: Indeo 3.2, 4.4, 5.0 and i263 codecs are only available on classic. Most everything else will work fine with QuickTime Player, Video Lan Client (VLC player)/mPlayer, and Real Player on OS X. WMV3 is about the only spot missing. Use Microsoft's WMP for that if you must.
If games: buy mac games. VPC is a poor gaming platform anyway.
The wink implies I'm joking about the BG thing:-) Yes, it would be very nice if someone took it and ran with it. Anything to stop the RIAA once and for all is welcome. There was even a partial implementation of this very thing mentioned on slashdot not too long ago. It did the encryption/signing aspect, but did not include any collaborative filtering. I wish I had bookmarked it, as I cannot find the link now...
And when you are done, why don't you guys try being honest with the public for once. After being bombarded with your flagrant lies to the American public, I am only encouraged to vote third party. Try being leaders instead of misleaders for a change. "I actually voted for the 87 Billion dollars before I voted against it." Yeah, and we all know the final approval for the bill in the Senate was a voice vote, that Kerry didn't even attend. Of the 6 senators that bothered to show up, Byrd was the only one to vote against it.
The national debt sits at 7.4 Trillion dollars, we have a 500 billion dollar budget deficit, a 500 billion dollar trade deficit, and the one question about the global economy is about the frickin' metric system? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Additionally, could you explain why outlawing alcohol required an amendment to the constitution, yet no amendment is necessary to prohibit the use of marijuana and other illegal drugs.
An idea I posted a while back already describes my idea of the ultimate music store. It would essentially put profits, control of sales, and pricing directly in the hands of the people who make the music. It would also serve the purpose of spreading the word about the music to those most likely to buy it, eliminating the need for MTV, Clear Channel, etc. But that wasn't what you wanted to hear, was it Bill Gates?;-)
The increase in the national debt during Clinton's administration is due to interest.
Try that logic on a loan you owe personally sometime. "Listen, I know my mortgage payment is due, and I have most of it, but since the part I don't have is just interest, well, I have a balanced budget and everything is fine... right?" It won't fly with the bank, it doesn't fly with me. Clinton didn't balance the budget, though fiscally, he did have us headed in the right direction.
But I don't think it was technically the interest they weren't paying. Since the "Social Security Trust Fund" takes in 200-300 Billion more each year than it spends, and Congress sees fit to spend my retirement today, the actual budget deficit is off by exactly that amount. Hence, the budget is 'balanced' yet the national debt continues to increase.
That infuriates me because in every one of my paychecks, I only see half of what is payed into that trust fund being removed. The other half is a matching tax payed by the employer. It's like those sneaky little surcharges that are so popular in business these days. You never see it. It's just taken from you without your knowledge or benefit. Add that back into my taxes payed last year, and I payed more Social Security tax than I did federal income tax. Squandering what is legally mine knowing they, like Social Security itself, will be long gone by the time it's my turn to collect isn't insult enough. They are dishonest and less than forthright in the collection of the tax, and that really makes my blood boil.
Not to dismiss the remainder of your post offhand, but bully for you. You live within your means, and you and yours apparently got decent jobs with your degrees. Thank whatever lucky star or deity you pray to. Your friends may squander what they have, but don't discount the fact that you are also fortunate to be in the position to live within your means. Not everyone can afford every luxury, like food and shelter. Tough choices. When things are that tight, every penny of tax hurts. To then watch that tax be wasted on every useless bureaucrat and every corporate tax break is deplorable. Watching the government live beyond it's means when you cannot afford to live within your own makes you see these people for what they are...
But being that you appear to be interested in health care, you certainly must have an opinion on reimportation of prescription drugs, no? Do me a favor. Look at that word: reimportation. I have never seen or heard that word used before this election year. How is it that drugs made in this country cost more than they do across the border and overseas? Perhaps there is a deeper issue? Do me a favor... If you get a politician in front of a camera, just ask him/her, "Why are drugs more expensive here in the first place?" following his response with "Isn't that price fixing?" =) Thanks! Nice chatting with ya BTW:-)
County Jail? Room and board + three square meals a day AND I don't have to work for a year? Throw the book at me baby! Meetcha at the public library Andy Taylor!
But since someone brought it up... I remember Greenspan playing a key role in helping that bubble burst. You know, Mr. Irrational Exuberance himself. The guy raising interest rates with the stated purpose of 'slowing down the overheating economy.'
He also stood by and watched Clinton sign away depression era laws in 1999 that had been on the books for decades. Yeah, that's him on the far left. These laws separated banks, securities firms, and insurance companies for a reason. Imagine a bank invested in the stock market. Not only is this a risky investment for a bank holding *YOUR* money, but suppose it provides a conflict of interest. The bank is also dispensing investment advice. Banks might mislead investors in order to bail themselves out of a bad investment, no? Well guess what happens next...
In 2002, Accounting firm Arthur Andersen was convicted of a single charge stemming from its lackluster auditing of Enron. That action forced Andersen, one of the largest and most respected auditors in the world, to go out of business.
There was plenty of blame to go around. Corporate executives had cooked books while lining their pockets. Analysts at investment banks had recommended stocks they knew were dogs in a quid pro quo that ensured banking business from those same firms.
Which brings us back around to the real reason for our failing economy. Gross mismanagement of tax laws, banking regulations, and the federal budget by congress and the president. And not just this congress and not just this president. You don't get a 7.4 Trillion dollar national debt overnight. That, friend, you cannot blame on me or the terrorists.
Strange, but it seems to me that if the budget were balanced, the debt would not be increasing. But hey, I'm not a math major. Maybe there's something about addition and subtraction that I missed somewhere along the way.
Yeah, we're at 7.4 Trillion now. Did I say I liked Bush? I hope I didn't imply that.
I can see how one would think this, based on available evidence... but consider what the RIAA means by the term "catastrophic failure". This does not imply a slow and gradual decay... Such an occurence would be a much more graceful than catastrophic failure. So if the RIAA is right, it should still be no suprise that since it hasn't failed outright yet, most people haven't noticed any problems. Indeed, there is absolutely nothing that says that "catastrophic failure" could not be precipitated by "overwhelming success".
I'm afraid I'm missing your point here.
However... let's look a little further than our normal short-sighted goals for a minute.
First of all, publicly sharing a file that contains copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement, plain and simple. There is absolutely no way around this without the abolishment of copyright law. Is a future without copyrights one that we really want, however?
End users of file sharing networks are violating current copyright law by sharing files, but changing that does not equate to the repeal of copyright. Stating otherwise is hyperbola.
First of all, it is worthwhile to recall that prior to the invention of copyright, copying without permission was not a big deal because the process of copying in the first place was so tedious and error prone that there was no economic incentive to do so. But in this age, copying is easy... anyone can do it. What would happen without them today, especially given the tendency for human greed and the capatilistic society which feeds it?
So you're telling me there were never cover bands (or cover bards or whatever you want to call them) prior to our current 'Intellectual Property' laws? I believe you are simply wrong here. Your statements are completely oblivious to the GPL phenomenon as well. Sharing ideas has happened since the stone age. Being allowed to monopolize an idea is a more recent invention that typically has done more to slow progress than to hasten it. Why do you think Hollywood is on the west coast?
Without copyrights, it is not unreasonable to speculate that the only books that would ever get published in print are those that are sponsored by some organization that would not be relying on sales of the book to recover their losses (since there would be no protection like what authors currently have with copyright). Most likely, such sponsors would be either the government or some government sponsored organizations, and the money spent on printing the books could be recovered through taxation.
Books will sell, whether they are posted for free online or not. Bruce Eckel posts his books online ("Thinking in Java" and other programming titles), and not only does he sell plenty of copies, but he has the additional benefit of having many eyes acting as editors informing him of ambiguities, errors, and other mistakes in his works, for free.
Of course there's always the Internet, where anyone and their dog can publish anything they want for free. But that's just the problem... since anyone can publish, practically everyone will. This makes it exceptionally difficult to locate quality material on the Internet unless it was created by someone who was already at least moderately high profile. The would-be author who might have a book that appeals to some sector of the public has no real economic incentive to publish the work.
Just because you've never seen it done, doesn't mean it can't be done. Ebay overcomes problems with reputation using feedback. iRate uses collaborative filtering. Slashdot has karma. A little creativity is all that is necessary.
Bottom line, distributing any copyrighted content without permission from the copyright holder is copyright violation. Since a world without copyrights would not be as useful for the art
Something is not _inherently_ wrong with a law when the majority of the nation is made criminal by it.
Hmm, perhaps I should qualify that a bit. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner after all.
There is another possibility, that being that the majority of the nation is either too ignorant or apathetic to consciously concern themselves with the long term consequences of their actions
Oh, I couldn't agree more here. Though I wouldn't say ignorance is entirely the fault of those affected. Apathy is also a problem, but people need someone to enlighten them before they are motivated, hence we are back to ignorance. Ignorance in turn is rooted in the fact that multinational media corporations benefit from the ignorance of the populace in this case. If school children have a really good teacher they *might* learn a little about the subject. More likely however, they'll end up in the MPAA classroom. For most voting adults, the nightly news is their primary source of information about current events. They have jobs to keep them occupied and find little time for personal enlightenment. Ignorance is a problem, and the result of a deeper problem: One sided propaganda.
and the true reasons behind the law in the first place.
I think I've covered that part: The RIAA says unchecked file sharing will cause catastrophic failure for the record industry, yet the exact opposite has occurred.
We do not need a law against file sharing, because file sharing is not damaging anyone's business in a significant way.
Actually, most people do *NOT* have a problem ripping off someone who is honest and decent, as long as they don't actually have to actually see the person or in some other way be connected to them in a manner that could reasonably and forseeably (adversely) affect their life. Large and effectively invisible organizations like the RIAA fit into this category quite nicely so people have no problem with piracy.
And you say:
I did not once say that the RIAA was honest or decent. I said that the RIAA fit nicely into the category of someone that most people would never directly see or be connected to in some way that could potentially adversely affect them in some foreseeable way.
So am I to understand you actually meant:
Actually, most people do *NOT* have a problem ripping off someone... as long as they don't actually have to actually see the person or in some other way be connected to them in a manner that could reasonably and forseeably (adversely) affect their life. Large and effectively invisible organizations like the RIAA fit into this category quite nicely so people have no problem with piracy.
Because the way I read it, adding the qualifier 'who is honest and decent' where you did implies that the RIAA is such an organization. If the above more accurately reflects what you meant then my response would be that 60 Million Americans can't be wrong.
Something is inherently wrong with the law when the majority of America is made a criminal by it. Look at prohibition of alcohol for instance(repealed), or national highway speed limits(gradually raised but kept within safe limits). The pendulum has swung too far in favor of copyright holders, and the results are the 'rampant piracy' you see today. It is only a problem because the law says so.
Bottom line: The RIAA members are making more money than they were 3 years ago, not less. The RIAA says unchecked file sharing will cause catastrophic failure for the record industry, yet the exact opposite has occurred. The law needs to be changed, and right now our lawmakers are making changes in the wrong direction.
Actually, most people do *NOT* have a problem ripping off someone who is honest and decent... organizations like the RIAA fit into this category quite nicely so people have no problem with piracy.
What part of price fixing and suing children makes the RIAA either honest or decent? As a result of their honest, decent behavior I have personally decided to *never* give them another dime. I get music free, legally or I buy from non-RIAA bands. I actually spend a lot more on music now than I ever did before the file-sharing lawsuits, but obviously, they will not be benefiting from it:-)
Not sure if this qualifies as 'a response at their expense,' but I find this part particularly interesting: If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material.
Perhaps I should share this info on gnutella and title it 'Fight the Power';-)
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Osama is a Saudi prince by birth. Saudi charities were funding terrorism. Saudi Arabia makes their women wear hoods, teach and endorse radical fundamentalist Islamic religion, and have no problem with slavery. Afghanistan was just a terrorist camp ground. By the time we got there, the terrorists were gone and the Taliban was left holding the bag.
So where did we go after Afghanistan? That's right, Iraq. Who's next? Iran maybe? We aren't going to win the war on terrorism, because we keep invading the wrong countries.
As told by the Woz here.
Next Story: Microsoft pays lapdogs in Senate and Congress to pass INDUCE Act, making OEM Linux PCs illegal.
Inducing piracy makes selling a Linux PC illegal. Another day, another instance of Copyright trumps 1st Amendment. I must have misread that 'Congress shall make no law' part :-/
No, just read the license. It was illegal for whoever sold you the computer to sell it to you with an existing copy of Windows on it.
Looking back now, it feels completely absurd that anyone would not complain about an operating system company illegally restricting what browsers the OEMs were allowed to bundle with their systems.
Windows only sw: Assuming a Mac equivalent won't do or can't be found, you're probably gonna have to go VPC here. Continue waiting for MS to deliver a G5 compatible version. :-/ Or try Bochs if it can't wait. Likely to be slower than VPC, but better than nothing.
If old sw: I presume this is to access old files in proprietary formats? If that is the case, get GraphicConverter, Stuffit, MacLinkPlus, and possibly SoundApp on Classic. Those four apps should cover practically every old file format in existence. Some video files will require the use of classic: Indeo 3.2, 4.4, 5.0 and i263 codecs are only available on classic. Most everything else will work fine with QuickTime Player, Video Lan Client (VLC player)/mPlayer, and Real Player on OS X. WMV3 is about the only spot missing. Use Microsoft's WMP for that if you must.
If games: buy mac games. VPC is a poor gaming platform anyway.
The wink implies I'm joking about the BG thing :-) Yes, it would be very nice if someone took it and ran with it. Anything to stop the RIAA once and for all is welcome. There was even a partial implementation of this very thing mentioned on slashdot not too long ago. It did the encryption/signing aspect, but did not include any collaborative filtering. I wish I had bookmarked it, as I cannot find the link now...
And when you are done, why don't you guys try being honest with the public for once. After being bombarded with your flagrant lies to the American public, I am only encouraged to vote third party. Try being leaders instead of misleaders for a change. "I actually voted for the 87 Billion dollars before I voted against it." Yeah, and we all know the final approval for the bill in the Senate was a voice vote, that Kerry didn't even attend. Of the 6 senators that bothered to show up, Byrd was the only one to vote against it.
The national debt sits at 7.4 Trillion dollars, we have a 500 billion dollar budget deficit, a 500 billion dollar trade deficit, and the one question about the global economy is about the frickin' metric system? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Additionally, could you explain why outlawing alcohol required an amendment to the constitution, yet no amendment is necessary to prohibit the use of marijuana and other illegal drugs.
An idea I posted a while back already describes my idea of the ultimate music store. It would essentially put profits, control of sales, and pricing directly in the hands of the people who make the music. It would also serve the purpose of spreading the word about the music to those most likely to buy it, eliminating the need for MTV, Clear Channel, etc. But that wasn't what you wanted to hear, was it Bill Gates? ;-)
A very interesting article regarding the 1876 presidential elections.
I suppose Bill's house is magnetically shielded too, eh?
<TINFOILHAT>It won't surprise me if this decision actually stands and used against The People. How you say? Read this.</ TINFOILHAT>
You are now returned to your regularly scheduled goodthink ;-)
The increase in the national debt during Clinton's administration is due to interest.
Try that logic on a loan you owe personally sometime. "Listen, I know my mortgage payment is due, and I have most of it, but since the part I don't have is just interest, well, I have a balanced budget and everything is fine... right?" It won't fly with the bank, it doesn't fly with me. Clinton didn't balance the budget, though fiscally, he did have us headed in the right direction.
But I don't think it was technically the interest they weren't paying. Since the "Social Security Trust Fund" takes in 200-300 Billion more each year than it spends, and Congress sees fit to spend my retirement today, the actual budget deficit is off by exactly that amount. Hence, the budget is 'balanced' yet the national debt continues to increase.
That infuriates me because in every one of my paychecks, I only see half of what is payed into that trust fund being removed. The other half is a matching tax payed by the employer. It's like those sneaky little surcharges that are so popular in business these days. You never see it. It's just taken from you without your knowledge or benefit. Add that back into my taxes payed last year, and I payed more Social Security tax than I did federal income tax. Squandering what is legally mine knowing they, like Social Security itself, will be long gone by the time it's my turn to collect isn't insult enough. They are dishonest and less than forthright in the collection of the tax, and that really makes my blood boil.
Not to dismiss the remainder of your post offhand, but bully for you. You live within your means, and you and yours apparently got decent jobs with your degrees. Thank whatever lucky star or deity you pray to. Your friends may squander what they have, but don't discount the fact that you are also fortunate to be in the position to live within your means. Not everyone can afford every luxury, like food and shelter. Tough choices. When things are that tight, every penny of tax hurts. To then watch that tax be wasted on every useless bureaucrat and every corporate tax break is deplorable. Watching the government live beyond it's means when you cannot afford to live within your own makes you see these people for what they are...
But being that you appear to be interested in health care, you certainly must have an opinion on reimportation of prescription drugs, no? Do me a favor. Look at that word: reimportation. I have never seen or heard that word used before this election year. How is it that drugs made in this country cost more than they do across the border and overseas? Perhaps there is a deeper issue? Do me a favor... If you get a politician in front of a camera, just ask him/her, "Why are drugs more expensive here in the first place?" following his response with "Isn't that price fixing?" =) Thanks! Nice chatting with ya BTW :-)
County Jail? Room and board + three square meals a day AND I don't have to work for a year? Throw the book at me baby! Meetcha at the public library Andy Taylor!
But since someone brought it up... I remember Greenspan playing a key role in helping that bubble burst. You know, Mr. Irrational Exuberance himself. The guy raising interest rates with the stated purpose of 'slowing down the overheating economy.'
He also stood by and watched Clinton sign away depression era laws in 1999 that had been on the books for decades. Yeah, that's him on the far left. These laws separated banks, securities firms, and insurance companies for a reason. Imagine a bank invested in the stock market. Not only is this a risky investment for a bank holding *YOUR* money, but suppose it provides a conflict of interest. The bank is also dispensing investment advice. Banks might mislead investors in order to bail themselves out of a bad investment, no? Well guess what happens next...
There was plenty of blame to go around. Corporate executives had cooked books while lining their pockets. Analysts at investment banks had recommended stocks they knew were dogs in a quid pro quo that ensured banking business from those same firms.
Which brings us back around to the real reason for our failing economy. Gross mismanagement of tax laws, banking regulations, and the federal budget by congress and the president. And not just this congress and not just this president. You don't get a 7.4 Trillion dollar national debt overnight. That, friend, you cannot blame on me or the terrorists.
Strange, but it seems to me that if the budget were balanced, the debt would not be increasing. But hey, I'm not a math major. Maybe there's something about addition and subtraction that I missed somewhere along the way.
Yeah, we're at 7.4 Trillion now. Did I say I liked Bush? I hope I didn't imply that.
I'm afraid I'm missing your point here.
However... let's look a little further than our normal short-sighted goals for a minute.
First of all, publicly sharing a file that contains copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement, plain and simple. There is absolutely no way around this without the abolishment of copyright law. Is a future without copyrights one that we really want, however?
End users of file sharing networks are violating current copyright law by sharing files, but changing that does not equate to the repeal of copyright. Stating otherwise is hyperbola.
So you're telling me there were never cover bands (or cover bards or whatever you want to call them) prior to our current 'Intellectual Property' laws? I believe you are simply wrong here. Your statements are completely oblivious to the GPL phenomenon as well. Sharing ideas has happened since the stone age. Being allowed to monopolize an idea is a more recent invention that typically has done more to slow progress than to hasten it. Why do you think Hollywood is on the west coast?
Books will sell, whether they are posted for free online or not. Bruce Eckel posts his books online ("Thinking in Java" and other programming titles), and not only does he sell plenty of copies, but he has the additional benefit of having many eyes acting as editors informing him of ambiguities, errors, and other mistakes in his works, for free.
Just because you've never seen it done, doesn't mean it can't be done. Ebay overcomes problems with reputation using feedback. iRate uses collaborative filtering. Slashdot has karma. A little creativity is all that is necessary.
Something is not _inherently_ wrong with a law when the majority of the nation is made criminal by it.
Hmm, perhaps I should qualify that a bit. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner after all.
There is another possibility, that being that the majority of the nation is either too ignorant or apathetic to consciously concern themselves with the long term consequences of their actions
Oh, I couldn't agree more here. Though I wouldn't say ignorance is entirely the fault of those affected. Apathy is also a problem, but people need someone to enlighten them before they are motivated, hence we are back to ignorance. Ignorance in turn is rooted in the fact that multinational media corporations benefit from the ignorance of the populace in this case. If school children have a really good teacher they *might* learn a little about the subject. More likely however, they'll end up in the MPAA classroom. For most voting adults, the nightly news is their primary source of information about current events. They have jobs to keep them occupied and find little time for personal enlightenment. Ignorance is a problem, and the result of a deeper problem: One sided propaganda.
and the true reasons behind the law in the first place.
I think I've covered that part: The RIAA says unchecked file sharing will cause catastrophic failure for the record industry, yet the exact opposite has occurred.
We do not need a law against file sharing, because file sharing is not damaging anyone's business in a significant way.
Actually, most people do *NOT* have a problem ripping off someone who is honest and decent, as long as they don't actually have to actually see the person or in some other way be connected to them in a manner that could reasonably and forseeably (adversely) affect their life. Large and effectively invisible organizations like the RIAA fit into this category quite nicely so people have no problem with piracy.
And you say:
I did not once say that the RIAA was honest or decent. I said that the RIAA fit nicely into the category of someone that most people would never directly see or be connected to in some way that could potentially adversely affect them in some foreseeable way.
So am I to understand you actually meant:
Actually, most people do *NOT* have a problem ripping off someone ... as long as they don't actually have to actually see the person or in some other way be connected to them in a manner that could reasonably and forseeably (adversely) affect their life. Large and effectively invisible organizations like the RIAA fit into this category quite nicely so people have no problem with piracy.
Because the way I read it, adding the qualifier 'who is honest and decent' where you did implies that the RIAA is such an organization. If the above more accurately reflects what you meant then my response would be that 60 Million Americans can't be wrong.
Something is inherently wrong with the law when the majority of America is made a criminal by it. Look at prohibition of alcohol for instance(repealed), or national highway speed limits(gradually raised but kept within safe limits). The pendulum has swung too far in favor of copyright holders, and the results are the 'rampant piracy' you see today. It is only a problem because the law says so.
Bottom line: The RIAA members are making more money than they were 3 years ago, not less. The RIAA says unchecked file sharing will cause catastrophic failure for the record industry, yet the exact opposite has occurred. The law needs to be changed, and right now our lawmakers are making changes in the wrong direction.
Actually, most people do *NOT* have a problem ripping off someone who is honest and decent ... organizations like the RIAA fit into this category quite nicely so people have no problem with piracy.
What part of price fixing and suing children makes the RIAA either honest or decent? As a result of their honest, decent behavior I have personally decided to *never* give them another dime. I get music free, legally or I buy from non-RIAA bands. I actually spend a lot more on music now than I ever did before the file-sharing lawsuits, but obviously, they will not be benefiting from it :-)
Not sure if this qualifies as 'a response at their expense,' but I find this part particularly interesting: If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material.
Perhaps I should share this info on gnutella and title it 'Fight the Power' ;-)
In support of your statement...
When Corporations Wield the Constitution