"You mean the death of meaning of the Constitution's language "limited times," effective eternal copyright on software and media, along with excessive laws that provide jail time for what would be a minor property crime in the physical world have eroded respect for copyright law?"
Do you really think if copyright law were still 12 years, that would change the attitudes of file traders? The short answer, no.
SCO can't be penalized if IBM releases SCO's trade secrets into Linux without informing SCO (in violation of NDAs with SCO). SCO would need to release the code itself, not simpply redistribute it for them to have given away their own trade secret. This arguement doesn't make sense unless you're desperate.
They shouldn't need to review it. The claim was that the code was copyrighted and unencumerber by other parties. They've recently discovered this is false. You can't penalize SCO because someone else broke the law and claimed something was unencumerbered when it wasn't. This is a violation of the GPL as well.
"I'm sorry, that is BULLSHIT. Okay if that is true, well: I just gave a copy of RedHat to my cat. Part of that giving was that I waived all responsibility for copyright infingement, SCO cannot sue RedHat or me, the burden has shifted to my cat.
I think it is plainly obvious that you are wrong.
"
Your cat theory is simply assine. Here's a better example. If you go skiing, there are signs everywhere for most resorts that waive any responsibility for you injuring yourself on their mountains. Normally, if you fall on someone's property and hurt yourself, you can sue the person. It's called a contract. You can't have a comtract with a cat. You've been watching to many Simpsons episodes.
"hey didn't lose the full price, they didn't loose anything other than potential to make a sale. and actually they still have that potential. the money was never theirs so the money wasn't stolen. copyright infringment does not mean loss of a sale and or money."
Actually, providing an alternative method for obtaining the copyrighted material free lowers the value of the copyrighted material. Therefore, the potential to sell is reduced while the ability to get the item for free exists. Someone doing something illegal that lowers the value of my property may not strictly be theft, but it sure stinks of theft.
"If it was impossible to copy a file, so that piracy was impossible, the most labels would do is offer the music at the EXACT same price as a CD. As in, buy it at the store for $15, or, new and convenient!, download it now for $15! Because, if someone downloaded "Baby one more time" for $0.50, that's $14.50 they didn't spend on the rest of the CD. Net result: loss of $14.50! "
And what's wrong with that? You seem to think it's ok to lower the value of legally downloaded song through extortion, i.e. make it cheap enough to download a legal copy, for I'll just download an illegal copy. In reality, absent illegal sharing, the demand for legal copies go up, which makes the song worth more (which is why copyright infringement is theft). Therefore, the price will probably increase above $1, all else being equal. however, due to competition among retailers doing more volume, the price may stay the same or go down below $1.
"It is also worth noticing that copyright infringment is NOT directly connected to money or value since even if there is no selling for money or other value transaction, it is STILL copyright infringement to to copy something you don't have the right to copy (even if someone holding the copyright for example is giving away copies for free which makes it very hard to claim the equality of theft in such a case, while it is still copyright infringement)."
This is inaccurate. If I carve widgets and give them away randomly, and someone breaks into my house and steals the ones I haven't yet given away, they're still stealing even though I wasn't selling them for money.
"File trading networks are the new radio, and end users don't have to pay to listen to the radio. "
People are being sued for illegally broadcasting music, not receiving it, using your new radio metaphor. You need to pay the copyright holder if you broadcast music on the radio.
"For Snapster 2.0, then, the purchased copies act as masters that can be copied under fair use. But there can only be one copy in use at a time for every physical disk in the system. If 10,000 shareholders wanted to play the same song at the same time, we'd need to buy 10,000 CDs OR borrow 10,000 CDs. To do this (borrowing not buying), Snapster would have to be a big database that includes both music and ownership rights to that music. "
So if n people are playing a song simultaneously, the collective needs to own n cds. "Investors" thereby save money theoretically since no listener linstens to all his cds simultaneously, therefore an advantage is gained by sharing the cds you own and are not listening to with someone else in exchange for his cds. The question he didn't answer well is who pays for the cds? Buying 1 copy of every cd isn't enough anymore, even though he still suggests doing it.
It seems to me that a monthly fee needs to be established for snapster 2.0 that produces enough capital to buy the requisite number of cds to adequately satisfy demand. This system is actually nearly identical to Rhapsody, especially when DRM is forced on it to prevent people from cheating.
Flaw 1: SCO gave up their rights by distributing GPLed Linux code. - This is false because there is a difference between intentionally introducing code into Linux under GPL and redistributing code that others claim has a valid GPL copyright. So unless SCO intentionally introduces IP by introducing the code themselves, this arguement is weak.
Flaw 2: An end user can't be sued over copyright since he's not the one copying. - This is flawed in that many Linux distributors have licensing agreements with end users where they waive all responsibility for copyright vioaltions. This shifts the burden from the copyright infringer to the end user.
This doesn't mean I think people should start paying licensing fee to SCO, but don't be surprised if a court orders it some day.
"And if they (the consumer) didn't have a way of agreeing to the EULA contract before they purchased, they have to have a way of getting their money back if they don't like the conditions. Without that recourse, the entire EULA is rendered null and void since it is an attempt to change the deal after the fact, so to speak."
It seems to me the LA should be read by the EU before he buys the computer, not after. If he doesn't like it and he can't get the computer without Windows, then go somewhere else. Forcing an OEM to refund parts you don't want that you agreed to buy just seems silly since there's no reason the EULA can't be posted on the website or whereever he buys it.
So how many people are going to share these wireless links? 10Mb/s is hardly what I'd call a backbone. Sure it may be a fun exercise, but why the obsession with a wireless backbone when fiber has so much more bandwidth? I understand that wireless is the best solution in some cases, but this doesn't seem like one of them. Wireless seems to make a lot more sense as a last mile solution.
" # Speaking of copyright - what would a Lessig balance of copyright look like? Would you regulate books and computer programs different?
14 year term, renewable to 28 for all but computer programs.
Deposit requirement.
Registration requirement.
Vastly limited "derivative rights".
10 years for software max, if and only if, the source code is deposited.
No copyright protection at all for any software whose source code is not deposited. "
The idea that you need to deposit a work to copyright it is ridiculous. It's a scam where "the public" tries to benefit unfairly from an individual by forcing him to turn over a work to the public in order to get protection from the public. In the US, if I write something, whether I release it to no one or sell to anyone, I still retain the exclusive copyright. This is particularly important in the case of software, since there is not necessarily a motive to sell the source to the public. Lessig wants to force every company into a BSD style coding license after 10 years, however, or receive no protection for written software (if you refuse to deposit). This is a direct attack on proprietary software, as well as GPLed software, since both lose copyright in a very short time, after which anyone is free to copy out of a public archive and do as they wish with it.
First, why $199? If he didn't intend to run Windows, getting Wondows home xp is around $99. So did he buy a computer with xp pro or pay too much for xp home or rip off the OEM by getting more back than xp home is worth? Second, OEM's are not forced to ship a computer with Wondows by MS anymore (by law). Therefore, if a manufacturer decides to do this anyway, you shouldn't be able to return Windows. That's what you agreed to buy when you bought a computer with windows preinstalled. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. For cost and testablility reasons, it's easier for an OEM to install windows on a box and test and ship it, than to ship machines with differnt OS configs or no os. Anyway, so can I start taking stuff out of my car and returning it to the manufacturer now, if I didn't want it but it came with the base model (such as the radio, back seat, etc.)? That's basically the same idea.
"He sure as hell does NOT own it. He has a digital copy of it, which costs the producers NOTHING."
Every illegal copy of a song lowers the songs value, so by obtaining a free copy from an illegitimate source, instead of paying for it, you are taking something from the producers.
"Yes, people have a right to make a dollar or thousand for their intellectual contributions, but people also have a right to such as "innocent until proven guilty," and "freedom from unwarranted search and seizure"
The people being sued are still considered innocent until proven guilty. As for unwarranted search and seizure, the evidence for a search warrant is pretty strong for the alleged infringers, so I don't see a problem here, although the law needs to be revised to have a judge examine the method to apporve a block of IP name requests based on the method of obtaining them, IMO.
"It's not loss of profit that the RIAA is worried about anyway, it's always been about loss of controll. If the RIAA can't force the public to think the artists it hand picks are cool, then they can't be sure of profits from manufactured bands."
This is bs. Record companies are competing against each other to find talent people like. They only cooperate on legal issues. Record companies simply want the legal right to control copying that is guaranteed by the constitution, which directly impacts their revenue.
"3 Traditions: The confucian traditions imply total devotion to work and society. However, the US tradition imply total devotion to self interest and egoism. So, the Chinese society have much better chance to complete large scale and high effort projects. The US have problems there. Take e.g. Iraq we have our boys just a few months there, but already the press is whining that some of them are dying. Even worse the US economic system is based on these "values", so we can't change them without having our society collapse."
Self interest is what has made America great. It's no coincidence that the Soviet Union collapsed and China is on a slow road toward capitalism. A person is motivated to accomplish more and work harder when he directly benefits from his effort. Communism denies this by taking the product of labor and distrubuting it based on need, rather than merit.
" 6. Less restricted goverment: In China the goverment doesn't have to obey very much restrictions. So they don't have to spend so much money on their own people or to protect human rights. "
People without basic freedoms are less likely to be productive since they do not benefit from their labor.
Socialism is like feudalism, with the exception that the ruling class uses altruism as a weapon to disarm those who claim what they are doing is immoral. "It can't be immoral because I'm ruling selflessly in the name of the poor."
"The recording industry continues its futile crusade to sue thousands of the over 60 million people who use file-sharing software in the U.S.," Fred Von Lohmann, senior attorney with the EFF, said in a statement. "We hope that the EFF's subpoena database will give people some peace of mind and the information they need to challenge the subpoenas and protect their privacy." "
Statements like this show the EFF has no regard for copyright. Most of these people are guilty, but the EFF somehow thinks the RIAA is wrong for prosecuting them. What does privacy hae to do with anything. These people made public copyrighted works and now the EFF is defending their right to do so anonymously by hiding behind their ISPs? What next? Is the EFF going to defend the right to prank callers to be able to harrass people anonymously? And before you start complaining that a judge should have to sign each subpoena, that's just hiding behind beuracracy. In reality if a judge decides the method of collecting IPs is sufficient evidence to warrant a subpoena, the RIAA should be able to "batch" submit as many as they want using this method. The EFF isn't interested in justice, but instead they're trying to give people rights they don't have under the constitution.
"As to how many current downloaders have legal rights to their files, I wouldn't hazard a guess. I agree it's probably low. The RIAA still should have to bear the burden of proof in any individual case, however, something they're managing to evade. "
If anyone doesn't settle, I'm sure they'll be more than willing to get a search warrant for the computer in question. Face it. Most people are guilty, and those that aren't can take the matter to court. Blame lawyers if you think that this option is too expensive, not the RIAA.
"And I disagree. I think a far more free market is called for, and that the regulation that keeps distribution channels that have long since become obsolete alive are a travesty, practiced simply to ensure the rich (the RIAA in this case) will never have to work to get 'their' money out of the rest of the population again. It's corporate welfare, and the RIAA are some of the biggest hoes out there."
This is nonsense. RIAA members have been guaranteed the exclusive right to be the only ones who can legally copy their songs. Whether they choose to distribute as cds or online is their choice, not yours. The people on "welfare" are the illegal file sharers who expect the RIAA members property for free at the expense of the RIAA members.
The market has already decided.
Free market doesn't exist when the seller is deprived the right to have some say in the price. Saying the market has spoken is like saying thieves have a right to influence market prices by stealing stuff they don't feel like paying for.
" A screenshot of free songs on offer is bullshit evidence, but you still have to expend all the time and resources proving it's bullshit evidence."
That evidence is just the starting point. If you don't settle, they'll get a search warrant and conviscate your computer, so they can find the alleged illegal material that you made availabe for download.
"I personally listen to almost 100% indie music and find that its harder to find good RIAA artists/songs than it is to find good indie artists. Certainly per capita the RIAA loses and badly."
Indie labels and RIAA members are not mutually exclusive. There are hundreds of members in the RIAA, and only 5 major labels. So, if you do the math, there's a good chance an indie label is an RIAA member. You need to do research on the labels that signed the bands you listened to if you're on a quest to avoid suppoting the RIAA.
MS usually asks for permission before sending this info home. I've never heard anyone say they got a prompt after rebooting asking if they wanted to inform MS of the problem. I agree however that this method could work for keeping stats. However, it doesn't distinguish a crash from someone simply hitting the off switch without shutting down the OS. I've seen "The system has recovered from a serious error." too, but there was no noticeable problem with the machine before or after the problem. If the sw sent info to MS, it didn't tell me about it then.
" i-T-u-n-e-s (note your mini-spellng lesson) was created by APPLE CORPORATION. You know, those guys who make MacIntosh personal computers. The guys who are also giving independent artists access to iTunes through CDBaby, which is hardly anything that the RIAA would either do or want anyone else to.
Yes, the stupidity of some people amazes me, and you are a prime example. "
Tower Music wasn't formed by the RIAA members, but guess what, they sell music distributed by the RIAA. Apple does the same. It's not Apple's music. They can't sell it without permission from RIAA members. Therefore iTunes is a means for the RIAA to distribute music online, which is logical, and contradicts your irrational thought process. The fact that Apple also supports non-RIAA members is irrelevant. Maybe I don't type well but at least I can think.
Slashdot Mirror
"You mean the death of meaning of the Constitution's language "limited times," effective eternal copyright on software and media, along with excessive laws that provide jail time for what would be a minor property crime in the physical world have eroded respect for copyright law?"
Do you really think if copyright law were still 12 years, that would change the attitudes of file traders? The short answer, no.
SCO can't be penalized if IBM releases SCO's trade secrets into Linux without informing SCO (in violation of NDAs with SCO). SCO would need to release the code itself, not simpply redistribute it for them to have given away their own trade secret. This arguement doesn't make sense unless you're desperate.
They shouldn't need to review it. The claim was that the code was copyrighted and unencumerber by other parties. They've recently discovered this is false. You can't penalize SCO because someone else broke the law and claimed something was unencumerbered when it wasn't. This is a violation of the GPL as well.
"I'm sorry, that is BULLSHIT. Okay if that is true, well: I just gave a copy of RedHat to my cat. Part of that giving was that I waived all responsibility for copyright infingement, SCO cannot sue RedHat or me, the burden has shifted to my cat. I think it is plainly obvious that you are wrong. "
Your cat theory is simply assine. Here's a better example. If you go skiing, there are signs everywhere for most resorts that waive any responsibility for you injuring yourself on their mountains. Normally, if you fall on someone's property and hurt yourself, you can sue the person. It's called a contract. You can't have a comtract with a cat. You've been watching to many Simpsons episodes.
"hey didn't lose the full price, they didn't loose anything other than potential to make a sale. and actually they still have that potential. the money was never theirs so the money wasn't stolen. copyright infringment does not mean loss of a sale and or money."
Actually, providing an alternative method for obtaining the copyrighted material free lowers the value of the copyrighted material. Therefore, the potential to sell is reduced while the ability to get the item for free exists. Someone doing something illegal that lowers the value of my property may not strictly be theft, but it sure stinks of theft.
"If it was impossible to copy a file, so that piracy was impossible, the most labels would do is offer the music at the EXACT same price as a CD. As in, buy it at the store for $15, or, new and convenient!, download it now for $15! Because, if someone downloaded "Baby one more time" for $0.50, that's $14.50 they didn't spend on the rest of the CD. Net result: loss of $14.50! "
And what's wrong with that? You seem to think it's ok to lower the value of legally downloaded song through extortion, i.e. make it cheap enough to download a legal copy, for I'll just download an illegal copy. In reality, absent illegal sharing, the demand for legal copies go up, which makes the song worth more (which is why copyright infringement is theft). Therefore, the price will probably increase above $1, all else being equal. however, due to competition among retailers doing more volume, the price may stay the same or go down below $1.
"It is also worth noticing that copyright infringment is NOT directly connected to money or value since even if there is no selling for money or other value transaction, it is STILL copyright infringement to to copy something you don't have the right to copy (even if someone holding the copyright for example is giving away copies for free which makes it very hard to claim the equality of theft in such a case, while it is still copyright infringement)."
This is inaccurate. If I carve widgets and give them away randomly, and someone breaks into my house and steals the ones I haven't yet given away, they're still stealing even though I wasn't selling them for money.
"File trading networks are the new radio, and end users don't have to pay to listen to the radio. "
People are being sued for illegally broadcasting music, not receiving it, using your new radio metaphor. You need to pay the copyright holder if you broadcast music on the radio.
"For Snapster 2.0, then, the purchased copies act as masters that can be copied under fair use. But there can only be one copy in use at a time for every physical disk in the system. If 10,000 shareholders wanted to play the same song at the same time, we'd need to buy 10,000 CDs OR borrow 10,000 CDs. To do this (borrowing not buying), Snapster would have to be a big database that includes both music and ownership rights to that music. "
So if n people are playing a song simultaneously, the collective needs to own n cds. "Investors" thereby save money theoretically since no listener linstens to all his cds simultaneously, therefore an advantage is gained by sharing the cds you own and are not listening to with someone else in exchange for his cds. The question he didn't answer well is who pays for the cds? Buying 1 copy of every cd isn't enough anymore, even though he still suggests doing it.
It seems to me that a monthly fee needs to be established for snapster 2.0 that produces enough capital to buy the requisite number of cds to adequately satisfy demand. This system is actually nearly identical to Rhapsody, especially when DRM is forced on it to prevent people from cheating.
Flaw 1: SCO gave up their rights by distributing GPLed Linux code. - This is false because there is a difference between intentionally introducing code into Linux under GPL and redistributing code that others claim has a valid GPL copyright. So unless SCO intentionally introduces IP by introducing the code themselves, this arguement is weak.
Flaw 2: An end user can't be sued over copyright since he's not the one copying. - This is flawed in that many Linux distributors have licensing agreements with end users where they waive all responsibility for copyright vioaltions. This shifts the burden from the copyright infringer to the end user.
This doesn't mean I think people should start paying licensing fee to SCO, but don't be surprised if a court orders it some day.
"And if they (the consumer) didn't have a way of agreeing to the EULA contract before they purchased, they have to have a way of getting their money back if they don't like the conditions. Without that recourse, the entire EULA is rendered null and void since it is an attempt to change the deal after the fact, so to speak."
It seems to me the LA should be read by the EU before he buys the computer, not after. If he doesn't like it and he can't get the computer without Windows, then go somewhere else. Forcing an OEM to refund parts you don't want that you agreed to buy just seems silly since there's no reason the EULA can't be posted on the website or whereever he buys it.
So how many people are going to share these wireless links? 10Mb/s is hardly what I'd call a backbone. Sure it may be a fun exercise, but why the obsession with a wireless backbone when fiber has so much more bandwidth? I understand that wireless is the best solution in some cases, but this doesn't seem like one of them. Wireless seems to make a lot more sense as a last mile solution.
" # Speaking of copyright - what would a Lessig balance of copyright look like? Would you regulate books and computer programs different? 14 year term, renewable to 28 for all but computer programs. Deposit requirement. Registration requirement. Vastly limited "derivative rights". 10 years for software max, if and only if, the source code is deposited. No copyright protection at all for any software whose source code is not deposited. "
The idea that you need to deposit a work to copyright it is ridiculous. It's a scam where "the public" tries to benefit unfairly from an individual by forcing him to turn over a work to the public in order to get protection from the public. In the US, if I write something, whether I release it to no one or sell to anyone, I still retain the exclusive copyright. This is particularly important in the case of software, since there is not necessarily a motive to sell the source to the public. Lessig wants to force every company into a BSD style coding license after 10 years, however, or receive no protection for written software (if you refuse to deposit). This is a direct attack on proprietary software, as well as GPLed software, since both lose copyright in a very short time, after which anyone is free to copy out of a public archive and do as they wish with it.
First, why $199? If he didn't intend to run Windows, getting Wondows home xp is around $99. So did he buy a computer with xp pro or pay too much for xp home or rip off the OEM by getting more back than xp home is worth? Second, OEM's are not forced to ship a computer with Wondows by MS anymore (by law). Therefore, if a manufacturer decides to do this anyway, you shouldn't be able to return Windows. That's what you agreed to buy when you bought a computer with windows preinstalled. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. For cost and testablility reasons, it's easier for an OEM to install windows on a box and test and ship it, than to ship machines with differnt OS configs or no os. Anyway, so can I start taking stuff out of my car and returning it to the manufacturer now, if I didn't want it but it came with the base model (such as the radio, back seat, etc.)? That's basically the same idea.
So how easy is it to get a refund for MacOS, if you want to run Linux on on your Powerbook instead of MacOS?
"He sure as hell does NOT own it. He has a digital copy of it, which costs the producers NOTHING."
Every illegal copy of a song lowers the songs value, so by obtaining a free copy from an illegitimate source, instead of paying for it, you are taking something from the producers.
"Yes, people have a right to make a dollar or thousand for their intellectual contributions, but people also have a right to such as "innocent until proven guilty," and "freedom from unwarranted search and seizure"
The people being sued are still considered innocent until proven guilty. As for unwarranted search and seizure, the evidence for a search warrant is pretty strong for the alleged infringers, so I don't see a problem here, although the law needs to be revised to have a judge examine the method to apporve a block of IP name requests based on the method of obtaining them, IMO.
"It's not loss of profit that the RIAA is worried about anyway, it's always been about loss of controll. If the RIAA can't force the public to think the artists it hand picks are cool, then they can't be sure of profits from manufactured bands."
This is bs. Record companies are competing against each other to find talent people like. They only cooperate on legal issues. Record companies simply want the legal right to control copying that is guaranteed by the constitution, which directly impacts their revenue.
"3 Traditions: The confucian traditions imply total devotion to work and society. However, the US tradition imply total devotion to self interest and egoism. So, the Chinese society have much better chance to complete large scale and high effort projects. The US have problems there. Take e.g. Iraq we have our boys just a few months there, but already the press is whining that some of them are dying. Even worse the US economic system is based on these "values", so we can't change them without having our society collapse."
Self interest is what has made America great. It's no coincidence that the Soviet Union collapsed and China is on a slow road toward capitalism. A person is motivated to accomplish more and work harder when he directly benefits from his effort. Communism denies this by taking the product of labor and distrubuting it based on need, rather than merit.
" 6. Less restricted goverment: In China the goverment doesn't have to obey very much restrictions. So they don't have to spend so much money on their own people or to protect human rights. "
People without basic freedoms are less likely to be productive since they do not benefit from their labor.
Socialism is like feudalism, with the exception that the ruling class uses altruism as a weapon to disarm those who claim what they are doing is immoral. "It can't be immoral because I'm ruling selflessly in the name of the poor."
"The recording industry continues its futile crusade to sue thousands of the over 60 million people who use file-sharing software in the U.S.," Fred Von Lohmann, senior attorney with the EFF, said in a statement. "We hope that the EFF's subpoena database will give people some peace of mind and the information they need to challenge the subpoenas and protect their privacy." "
Statements like this show the EFF has no regard for copyright. Most of these people are guilty, but the EFF somehow thinks the RIAA is wrong for prosecuting them. What does privacy hae to do with anything. These people made public copyrighted works and now the EFF is defending their right to do so anonymously by hiding behind their ISPs? What next? Is the EFF going to defend the right to prank callers to be able to harrass people anonymously? And before you start complaining that a judge should have to sign each subpoena, that's just hiding behind beuracracy. In reality if a judge decides the method of collecting IPs is sufficient evidence to warrant a subpoena, the RIAA should be able to "batch" submit as many as they want using this method. The EFF isn't interested in justice, but instead they're trying to give people rights they don't have under the constitution.
"As to how many current downloaders have legal rights to their files, I wouldn't hazard a guess. I agree it's probably low. The RIAA still should have to bear the burden of proof in any individual case, however, something they're managing to evade. "
If anyone doesn't settle, I'm sure they'll be more than willing to get a search warrant for the computer in question. Face it. Most people are guilty, and those that aren't can take the matter to court. Blame lawyers if you think that this option is too expensive, not the RIAA.
"And I disagree. I think a far more free market is called for, and that the regulation that keeps distribution channels that have long since become obsolete alive are a travesty, practiced simply to ensure the rich (the RIAA in this case) will never have to work to get 'their' money out of the rest of the population again. It's corporate welfare, and the RIAA are some of the biggest hoes out there."
This is nonsense. RIAA members have been guaranteed the exclusive right to be the only ones who can legally copy their songs. Whether they choose to distribute as cds or online is their choice, not yours. The people on "welfare" are the illegal file sharers who expect the RIAA members property for free at the expense of the RIAA members.
The market has already decided.
Free market doesn't exist when the seller is deprived the right to have some say in the price. Saying the market has spoken is like saying thieves have a right to influence market prices by stealing stuff they don't feel like paying for.
" A screenshot of free songs on offer is bullshit evidence, but you still have to expend all the time and resources proving it's bullshit evidence."
That evidence is just the starting point. If you don't settle, they'll get a search warrant and conviscate your computer, so they can find the alleged illegal material that you made availabe for download.
"I personally listen to almost 100% indie music and find that its harder to find good RIAA artists/songs than it is to find good indie artists. Certainly per capita the RIAA loses and badly."
Indie labels and RIAA members are not mutually exclusive. There are hundreds of members in the RIAA, and only 5 major labels. So, if you do the math, there's a good chance an indie label is an RIAA member. You need to do research on the labels that signed the bands you listened to if you're on a quest to avoid suppoting the RIAA.
MS usually asks for permission before sending this info home. I've never heard anyone say they got a prompt after rebooting asking if they wanted to inform MS of the problem. I agree however that this method could work for keeping stats. However, it doesn't distinguish a crash from someone simply hitting the off switch without shutting down the OS. I've seen "The system has recovered from a serious error." too, but there was no noticeable problem with the machine before or after the problem. If the sw sent info to MS, it didn't tell me about it then.
" i-T-u-n-e-s (note your mini-spellng lesson) was created by APPLE CORPORATION. You know, those guys who make MacIntosh personal computers. The guys who are also giving independent artists access to iTunes through CDBaby, which is hardly anything that the RIAA would either do or want anyone else to. Yes, the stupidity of some people amazes me, and you are a prime example. "
Tower Music wasn't formed by the RIAA members, but guess what, they sell music distributed by the RIAA. Apple does the same. It's not Apple's music. They can't sell it without permission from RIAA members. Therefore iTunes is a means for the RIAA to distribute music online, which is logical, and contradicts your irrational thought process. The fact that Apple also supports non-RIAA members is irrelevant. Maybe I don't type well but at least I can think.