Well, if you get an old enough S-VHS player, it won't have Macrovision on it, and life's peachy keen. I forget the date of that nastiness, but it's been a while. Oh, and even if it does have Macrovision, it's easy enough to defeat with a "bad" cable.
You obviously haven't used Firewire. I have both USB2.0 and Firewire 400/800 drives. Firewire is now my preferred connection format, at least until eSata becomes ubiquitous, although even in that case FW may have its advantages.
USB is another dead-end connection specification that doesn't even work reliably. They really should just go with ethernet connected devices. Easy and simplifies your entire cabling structure to a single cable type plus it allows for wireless connectivity.
Bob was, however by far the most innovative UI MS ever produced. It just innovated in a direction that nobody wanted to go! That's generally called "a mistake", not innovation.
The window was no larger than 5 minutes. The average traffic rate was about 634 messages/s which is about 500MB/s in data flow. (Before you point out that's a lot of data, XML compresses quite well)
The second case topped out in testing at about 130K transactions/min. The desired goal was 200K, but the initial receiving system wouldn't scale high enough.
And yes, you'd think you could hit an arbitrary number of txns/sec given enough servers. Truth is, it's highly dependent upon your architecture, even more than what protocol you use. That first scenario is only part of a bigger system. The other portion of that system is a Windows binary based system with roughly 1600 servers involved. They're migrating to Java and XML because the system no longer scales efficiently, while the Java/XML system showed no issues scaling much further. (Note there were only 8 machines in the app layer).
I think 35K concurrent users at peak across 8 physical multi-core/multi-proc machines with multiple instances of appservers just might have given me a bit of insight into how web services work. (Each transaction averages about 800KB total, but that's largely due to brain-dead design - something worked with but honestly wasn't responsible for)
I won't argue that binary can be faster. It's also a PITA to code and maintain in a changing heterogenuous environment.
Nless than 5% each will have Linux or Mac. I wonder how false that statement is? After all, Apple sells about 5% of the marketshare of computers each quarter/year/whatever. Considering that Mac expected lifetimes are at least double a PC's, what is the true marketshare percentage?
I have that problem ever since they "integrated" IE with the OS and made IE the rendering engine for explorer (or WTF they did). Let's say I have a nice large directory tree (numbering in the thousands of files/folders) and wish to open it. If it has any zip or other compressed files that XP "understands", be prepared to wait a while the first time, and any time that particular portion of the cache has cleared itself. It's freakin annoying as hell. I turned off thumbnails precisely because the delay got huge on larger photo directories, and the entire system would get sluggish.
Vista has reported problems with copy/move/delete. That's a deal killer. I'm already on the command line in XP to accomplish any of those items.
I have done exactly that...and quickly restored my HP laptop to XP and felt thanks for having my OS X. You are not alone. Just today I counseled a friend on how to get his money back for the pre-installed Vista he got with his new Dell in case they won't let him regress to XP.
All the things I could do easily in XP were now an almightly trial in Vista. The interface in Vista has the feel of "change for the sake of change" instead of making anything more useful or easier to do. I thought the same thing with the Win2K->XP change. What on earth was the purpose of moving all the admin tools and changing a couple of them. What was up with removing some basic functionality from XPs administrative capabilities? I don't recall off-hand if the changes from NT4-> Win2K were as disruptive on the administrative front.
What's actually funy is that XP broke search. Win2Ks search worked. I can only ponder why MS broke it in XP. Now, that said, Win2Ks search sucks compared to Spotlight. I haven't tried the Vista search, but intend to soon.
I see PHBness isn't confined to the male set. I wonder what she'll think if you're running any of the many applications that don't work with Vista? Autodesk, for one, won't have a compatible version out for quite a while yet, and it will run you a mere $4K or so when it does come out.
You start out nicely and then throw in a left-handed insult. Clever.
Anyways, I think we agree that the law is vague, and we probably agree on some parts of the moral/ethics of downloading copyrighted content. Your Titanic statement is probably the most convincing. However, if I download a broadcast, how does that change things? How about from the originating broadcaster? (BBC does a lot of this btw)
That's one side of the coin. It's a little slippery, legally it's a bit vague, and I think we can agree on those issues while we may be on opposite sides of the larger discussion. The other side of the coin is one where copyright and the law as it was intended and what the lobbyists have foisted on the public wars more openly day by day. The content "owners", who aren't the artists, btw, believe at heart that you should fork over whatever they want to charge you every time you even think about one of "their" products. On the other side are the consumers who strongly feel that if they've paid for a disc of content, they bloody well own that content and can do with it what they please grudgingly short of copying it and distributing it. This particular clash is only just starting.
Hmm, 512MB RAM minimum, about $60-70. CPU around $60 IIRC. Motherboard about $60 if you're going cheap (includes video, audio, ethernet). 60GB drive $50. Case and power supply, yeah, I can see about $300. So add $160 for the Vista upgrade (and don't forget your other license cost in there, that should have been a minimum $60-80) comes in for a total of $460 ($520) minimum. (A 256MB vid card back then was a minimum $120)
Will it run Vista with what I consider adequate and comparable performance? It won't for me. Heck, install Vista on an $10K 8 CPU Mac Pro, and it probably would still be subpar. Why? Because there are certain normal OS operations I do rather routinely that are documented known issues with the Vista release.
As for Aero/Glass, perhaps I was misinformed. The only people I know that have experienced it and said it was cool are those with Vista Ultimate installed.
The overly broad statement was that all P2P downloading was illegal. I did not read that as applying solely to movies. My mistake if that's what you meant.
Originally, copyright was about control of your work and distribution of said work. It also stated it was given to promote the advancement of science and the arts. The problem with the entire clause in the constitution is that the particular article is quite vague and has been mushed and mashed to the point now that it's purely about full control for the rights holders, which are almost exclusively not the artists themselves. But that's an entirely different thousand hour effort I'd rather skip. I'm not that bored, and it wouldn't matter anyways.
The point is that copyright was something new added into law to protect the artist (inventor). Fair Use is something that someone better than me will need to state clearly and correctly, because while I think I know what it means, I'm sure I'll have more than one legal detail wrong. Regarding downloading though, until the DMCA, making a copy of a work was fine as long as you didn't distribute it. Distribution is what copyright is all about as far as this posting is concerned and the only thing I know is illegal. Downloading has never successfully been prosecuted. I wish I'd kept it, but there was a published case of some guy that downloaded like 3 million different songs during the Napster days. He wanted to archive every song available. AFAIK he was not charged with copyright infringement.
At the moment I'm running Mac OS, 2 copies of Windows XP (one for IE6, one for IE7) I forgot about that. I would hope you could do the same on a Windows box, but I've not personally seen a multiple VM IE installation on a Windows box to allow for 1 box to run multiple copies of IE (it's an integral part of the OS, remember? Separate XP installs)
I'm glad it works fine with you. Go join the sheeple.
The facts are that Vista has some serious underlying problems for those of us that actually use it. And, if you'll note, I mentioned Aero/Glass specifically. Your system won't handle that well. Also, all Macs are currently C2D except for the CD minis. Even the CD blows a Sempron out of the water.
Vista Ultimate upgrade costs $260. I don't recall exactly which one allows you to run Glass, so you may be right and able to save 50 or 100 on the OS upgrade. It's so confusing, which should tell you something. Tell me, what version do I need to display the nifty (wasteful) 3D window view they display prominently in their ads? Can you?
I wonder how many people that complain about Vista have actually tried it. It's a vast improvement over XP, and represents five years of work. Many people have tried it. Some of us are forced to use MS software at work no matter what our own desires or even the inappropriateness of an MS OS.
> Add in the DRM'd OS, and there's no reason to run it at all.
This is a common misconception. DRM doesn't lock you out of your system. The addition of DRM to Vista *enables* you to play DRM'd media, which you would otherwise be unable to play on XP or Mac. Just keep repeating that as you wait 30 minutes to copy a 100MB directory tree on your system.
And I think you mean "legally play on XP or Mac" based on current DMCA law. We can only hope that the iTunes DRM issue in the EU will continue to roll over all DRM issues, because iTunes is actually the biggest argument against DRM I've seen.
More software works on Windows than on a Mac. I don't need 500 versions of gems or tetris. What I need is 1 of each of the following: photo editing , photo organization, video editing, CD/DVD burning, Mail. You get all of those with the OS right off the bat. I've since tried Aperture and Photoshop (CS3 beta). Aperture is replacing iPhoto. I have seen no need for anything more than iMovieHD, which IMHO outshines Pinnacle Titanium Studio by leaps and bounds.
Basically, I'm fed up of people saying how great SpotLight is when they haven't even tried any competing products. Just give Vista a try and tell us what you think. I intend to, right after SP1 comes out or they issue a patch to fix the file handling issues. That one makes it a non starter for me. I routinely work with hundreds of MB of files, and I find XPs hourglass annoying enough already when who knows what it's doing when I want to move a 6K+ directory tree from location A to location B on the same physical drive. (Hint - from the command line, such a move takes under a second) Basically, those are some of the items have me fed up with MS products.
To be honest, I give up. I can see you aren't willing to try it. That's your choice and I respect that. I can't see how suggesting alternative products from Microsoft is trolling but suggesting alternatives from Apple is not, but I can see I am in the minority here so I will go back to my cave now. Have a nice day. You're mistaken. I have no choice but to try it, eventually, unless a large scale change happens in the business world. You should also realize that I have run many other OSes as well, including Solaris, IRIX, OS/2, various flavors of DOS including a deskview instance, various flavors of Linux, etc. I by no means am a Mac fanboy. However, when it comes to comparisons of OSX and Vista, Vista is a johnny come lately to the party and is wearing mostly last years duds and brought flat cherry beer. It doesn't meet any of my needs well, and the one thing it claims to do, DRM, is completely irrelevant to me and is actually a negative considering how invasive the MS implementation is.
1) I downloaded several Linux distros from P2P. Are you claiming they're illegal?
2) I downloaded Cheap Trick's "Live at Budokan", I owned the LP at the time and have since bought the CD to rectify the low-quality download issue.
So, did I break the law? Fair use says no. The uploader of "Live at Budokan" did, according to the RIAA, but if I was the only one that downloaded, he technically didn't, because no invalid copy was ever distributed. (Yes, IANAL, and this is a real sticking point that I'm not aware has ever been argued to a verdict in a court of law)
Yes,/. it pretty much anti-MS even though there are some virulent MS fanboi's here. Most here haven't bought any of the MS marketing pile. Now, that said, I reread your initial comment.
Mac Minis can be had for $500 or so. The cheapest Vista PC is about $400 and won't run anywhere near the speed of a Mac Mini, runs Vista Basic (basically XP w/ DRM) and isn't the system I'm comparing. The low-end are AMD Semprons, by the time you hit the first dual core systems, you're in the $600+ range.
I don't care for Vista's new interface design, and the file copy/move/delete issues pretty much kill any incentive to go any further with it. The eye candy is more distracting and disruptive than attractive, and thus kills any attractiveness in it. Add in the DRM'd OS, and there's no reason to run it at all. I like to be in control of what my computer does, thank you, not MS.
Lastly, just to feed the troll a little more because I'm bored, the main point in running a Mac isn't to run OSX (OMG, I just heard a blood vessel pop!) but rather to run the things that run on it. OSX doesn't get in my way, and I am able to accomplish something other than futzing about with my OS.
Pretty much any heavy developer work can benefit from such a system. When you're running databases, messaging applications, appservers, webservers, clients, etc, it can add processes quickly, not to mention the DB alone could use all 8 cores.
You missed my point(s) entirely. I admitted as much that you could get a "cheap" system. But to get to a level where hardware/software were playing in the same ballpark, my prices are spot on. Oh, and the driver was Vista, btw. Vista requires a certain level of hardware to run Aero/Glass smoothly.
Interesting. I moved to Mail from Thunderbird, because Mail deals with email a little bit better IMHO. While I like gmail, I don't use it exclusively, so I don't have the problem of my mail not being available locally. (There's also the solution of having Mail (or Thunderbird) copy all your gmail locally for those times you're not connected - but that gets to synchronicity issues)
I'll agree there's no perfect solution yet for the multiple mailbox issue. One of these days, someone will get it right. But I'll stick to my initial statement that G desktop seems largely redundant on a Mac.
Once I changed the default activation hotkeys to Cmd-Ctrl-Ctrl, meaning I definitely had to invoke it, I liked it a lot better. I use it as my app launcher exclusively. It also has other features, but that's the main thing I use it for.
The law is quite muddy in that they want it to be illegal to have it, but there are several exceptions (e.g., medicinal, naval). You are aware that the US Navy is the largest legal hemp grower and consumer in the US?
The reason I say it's muddy is that the federal and state governments are testing how far the federal government's power goes in regulating products that appear to be regulated for political reasons only (the medicinal use vs 0 tolerance).
Personally, I like the Netherlands take on it. Imagine what would happen if it became legal, widely available, and cheap. An entire class of criminal would almost instantly disappear overnight. School children would no longer be approached to get them hooked early. Paper products could be made cheaply from quickly renewable resources. The list goes on, but apparently the "War on Drugs" to profit both the law enforcement and prison industries directly and chemical and timber companies indirectly sells better than economic common sense.
Evidently you just don't understand. The copy is generated by the one that makes it available.
IIRC, there was a case early on in the RIAA bit where downloading was not considered infringement, primarily because the downloader wouldn't have known until inspecting said download whether it was infringing or not. In any case, if the downloader already owns a copy, him having a local copy is not infringement in any case, because of fair use. As others have said, this is one area that the RIAA/MPAA treads very very lightly because a negative ruling would set a precedent that they could ill afford.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you get an old enough S-VHS player, it won't have Macrovision on it, and life's peachy keen. I forget the date of that nastiness, but it's been a while. Oh, and even if it does have Macrovision, it's easy enough to defeat with a "bad" cable.
You obviously haven't used Firewire. I have both USB2.0 and Firewire 400/800 drives. Firewire is now my preferred connection format, at least until eSata becomes ubiquitous, although even in that case FW may have its advantages.
USB is another dead-end connection specification that doesn't even work reliably. They really should just go with ethernet connected devices. Easy and simplifies your entire cabling structure to a single cable type plus it allows for wireless connectivity.
The window was no larger than 5 minutes. The average traffic rate was about 634 messages/s which is about 500MB/s in data flow. (Before you point out that's a lot of data, XML compresses quite well)
The second case topped out in testing at about 130K transactions/min. The desired goal was 200K, but the initial receiving system wouldn't scale high enough.
And yes, you'd think you could hit an arbitrary number of txns/sec given enough servers. Truth is, it's highly dependent upon your architecture, even more than what protocol you use. That first scenario is only part of a bigger system. The other portion of that system is a Windows binary based system with roughly 1600 servers involved. They're migrating to Java and XML because the system no longer scales efficiently, while the Java/XML system showed no issues scaling much further. (Note there were only 8 machines in the app layer).
I think 35K concurrent users at peak across 8 physical multi-core/multi-proc machines with multiple instances of appservers just might have given me a bit of insight into how web services work. (Each transaction averages about 800KB total, but that's largely due to brain-dead design - something worked with but honestly wasn't responsible for)
I won't argue that binary can be faster. It's also a PITA to code and maintain in a changing heterogenuous environment.
I have that problem ever since they "integrated" IE with the OS and made IE the rendering engine for explorer (or WTF they did). Let's say I have a nice large directory tree (numbering in the thousands of files/folders) and wish to open it. If it has any zip or other compressed files that XP "understands", be prepared to wait a while the first time, and any time that particular portion of the cache has cleared itself. It's freakin annoying as hell. I turned off thumbnails precisely because the delay got huge on larger photo directories, and the entire system would get sluggish.
Vista has reported problems with copy/move/delete. That's a deal killer. I'm already on the command line in XP to accomplish any of those items.
What's actually funy is that XP broke search. Win2Ks search worked. I can only ponder why MS broke it in XP. Now, that said, Win2Ks search sucks compared to Spotlight. I haven't tried the Vista search, but intend to soon.
I see PHBness isn't confined to the male set. I wonder what she'll think if you're running any of the many applications that don't work with Vista? Autodesk, for one, won't have a compatible version out for quite a while yet, and it will run you a mere $4K or so when it does come out.
You start out nicely and then throw in a left-handed insult. Clever.
Anyways, I think we agree that the law is vague, and we probably agree on some parts of the moral/ethics of downloading copyrighted content. Your Titanic statement is probably the most convincing. However, if I download a broadcast, how does that change things? How about from the originating broadcaster? (BBC does a lot of this btw)
That's one side of the coin. It's a little slippery, legally it's a bit vague, and I think we can agree on those issues while we may be on opposite sides of the larger discussion. The other side of the coin is one where copyright and the law as it was intended and what the lobbyists have foisted on the public wars more openly day by day. The content "owners", who aren't the artists, btw, believe at heart that you should fork over whatever they want to charge you every time you even think about one of "their" products. On the other side are the consumers who strongly feel that if they've paid for a disc of content, they bloody well own that content and can do with it what they please grudgingly short of copying it and distributing it. This particular clash is only just starting.
Hmm, 512MB RAM minimum, about $60-70. CPU around $60 IIRC. Motherboard about $60 if you're going cheap (includes video, audio, ethernet). 60GB drive $50. Case and power supply, yeah, I can see about $300. So add $160 for the Vista upgrade (and don't forget your other license cost in there, that should have been a minimum $60-80) comes in for a total of $460 ($520) minimum. (A 256MB vid card back then was a minimum $120)
Will it run Vista with what I consider adequate and comparable performance? It won't for me. Heck, install Vista on an $10K 8 CPU Mac Pro, and it probably would still be subpar. Why? Because there are certain normal OS operations I do rather routinely that are documented known issues with the Vista release.
As for Aero/Glass, perhaps I was misinformed. The only people I know that have experienced it and said it was cool are those with Vista Ultimate installed.
The overly broad statement was that all P2P downloading was illegal. I did not read that as applying solely to movies. My mistake if that's what you meant.
Originally, copyright was about control of your work and distribution of said work. It also stated it was given to promote the advancement of science and the arts. The problem with the entire clause in the constitution is that the particular article is quite vague and has been mushed and mashed to the point now that it's purely about full control for the rights holders, which are almost exclusively not the artists themselves. But that's an entirely different thousand hour effort I'd rather skip. I'm not that bored, and it wouldn't matter anyways.
The point is that copyright was something new added into law to protect the artist (inventor). Fair Use is something that someone better than me will need to state clearly and correctly, because while I think I know what it means, I'm sure I'll have more than one legal detail wrong. Regarding downloading though, until the DMCA, making a copy of a work was fine as long as you didn't distribute it. Distribution is what copyright is all about as far as this posting is concerned and the only thing I know is illegal. Downloading has never successfully been prosecuted. I wish I'd kept it, but there was a published case of some guy that downloaded like 3 million different songs during the Napster days. He wanted to archive every song available. AFAIK he was not charged with copyright infringement.
I'm glad it works fine with you. Go join the sheeple.
The facts are that Vista has some serious underlying problems for those of us that actually use it. And, if you'll note, I mentioned Aero/Glass specifically. Your system won't handle that well. Also, all Macs are currently C2D except for the CD minis. Even the CD blows a Sempron out of the water.
Vista Ultimate upgrade costs $260. I don't recall exactly which one allows you to run Glass, so you may be right and able to save 50 or 100 on the OS upgrade. It's so confusing, which should tell you something. Tell me, what version do I need to display the nifty (wasteful) 3D window view they display prominently in their ads? Can you?
This is a common misconception. DRM doesn't lock you out of your system. The addition of DRM to Vista *enables* you to play DRM'd media, which you would otherwise be unable to play on XP or Mac. Just keep repeating that as you wait 30 minutes to copy a 100MB directory tree on your system.
And I think you mean "legally play on XP or Mac" based on current DMCA law. We can only hope that the iTunes DRM issue in the EU will continue to roll over all DRM issues, because iTunes is actually the biggest argument against DRM I've seen. More software works on Windows than on a Mac. I don't need 500 versions of gems or tetris. What I need is 1 of each of the following: photo editing , photo organization, video editing, CD/DVD burning, Mail. You get all of those with the OS right off the bat. I've since tried Aperture and Photoshop (CS3 beta). Aperture is replacing iPhoto. I have seen no need for anything more than iMovieHD, which IMHO outshines Pinnacle Titanium Studio by leaps and bounds. Basically, I'm fed up of people saying how great SpotLight is when they haven't even tried any competing products. Just give Vista a try and tell us what you think. I intend to, right after SP1 comes out or they issue a patch to fix the file handling issues. That one makes it a non starter for me. I routinely work with hundreds of MB of files, and I find XPs hourglass annoying enough already when who knows what it's doing when I want to move a 6K+ directory tree from location A to location B on the same physical drive. (Hint - from the command line, such a move takes under a second) Basically, those are some of the items have me fed up with MS products. To be honest, I give up. I can see you aren't willing to try it. That's your choice and I respect that. I can't see how suggesting alternative products from Microsoft is trolling but suggesting alternatives from Apple is not, but I can see I am in the minority here so I will go back to my cave now. Have a nice day. You're mistaken. I have no choice but to try it, eventually, unless a large scale change happens in the business world. You should also realize that I have run many other OSes as well, including Solaris, IRIX, OS/2, various flavors of DOS including a deskview instance, various flavors of Linux, etc. I by no means am a Mac fanboy. However, when it comes to comparisons of OSX and Vista, Vista is a johnny come lately to the party and is wearing mostly last years duds and brought flat cherry beer. It doesn't meet any of my needs well, and the one thing it claims to do, DRM, is completely irrelevant to me and is actually a negative considering how invasive the MS implementation is.
1) I downloaded several Linux distros from P2P. Are you claiming they're illegal?
2) I downloaded Cheap Trick's "Live at Budokan", I owned the LP at the time and have since bought the CD to rectify the low-quality download issue.
So, did I break the law? Fair use says no. The uploader of "Live at Budokan" did, according to the RIAA, but if I was the only one that downloaded, he technically didn't, because no invalid copy was ever distributed. (Yes, IANAL, and this is a real sticking point that I'm not aware has ever been argued to a verdict in a court of law)
Yes, /. it pretty much anti-MS even though there are some virulent MS fanboi's here. Most here haven't bought any of the MS marketing pile. Now, that said, I reread your initial comment.
Mac Minis can be had for $500 or so. The cheapest Vista PC is about $400 and won't run anywhere near the speed of a Mac Mini, runs Vista Basic (basically XP w/ DRM) and isn't the system I'm comparing. The low-end are AMD Semprons, by the time you hit the first dual core systems, you're in the $600+ range.
I don't care for Vista's new interface design, and the file copy/move/delete issues pretty much kill any incentive to go any further with it. The eye candy is more distracting and disruptive than attractive, and thus kills any attractiveness in it. Add in the DRM'd OS, and there's no reason to run it at all. I like to be in control of what my computer does, thank you, not MS.
Lastly, just to feed the troll a little more because I'm bored, the main point in running a Mac isn't to run OSX (OMG, I just heard a blood vessel pop!) but rather to run the things that run on it. OSX doesn't get in my way, and I am able to accomplish something other than futzing about with my OS.
Pretty much any heavy developer work can benefit from such a system. When you're running databases, messaging applications, appservers, webservers, clients, etc, it can add processes quickly, not to mention the DB alone could use all 8 cores.
You missed my point(s) entirely. I admitted as much that you could get a "cheap" system. But to get to a level where hardware/software were playing in the same ballpark, my prices are spot on. Oh, and the driver was Vista, btw. Vista requires a certain level of hardware to run Aero/Glass smoothly.
Interesting. I moved to Mail from Thunderbird, because Mail deals with email a little bit better IMHO. While I like gmail, I don't use it exclusively, so I don't have the problem of my mail not being available locally. (There's also the solution of having Mail (or Thunderbird) copy all your gmail locally for those times you're not connected - but that gets to synchronicity issues)
I'll agree there's no perfect solution yet for the multiple mailbox issue. One of these days, someone will get it right. But I'll stick to my initial statement that G desktop seems largely redundant on a Mac.
Once I changed the default activation hotkeys to Cmd-Ctrl-Ctrl, meaning I definitely had to invoke it, I liked it a lot better. I use it as my app launcher exclusively. It also has other features, but that's the main thing I use it for.
The law is quite muddy in that they want it to be illegal to have it, but there are several exceptions (e.g., medicinal, naval). You are aware that the US Navy is the largest legal hemp grower and consumer in the US?
The reason I say it's muddy is that the federal and state governments are testing how far the federal government's power goes in regulating products that appear to be regulated for political reasons only (the medicinal use vs 0 tolerance).
Personally, I like the Netherlands take on it. Imagine what would happen if it became legal, widely available, and cheap. An entire class of criminal would almost instantly disappear overnight. School children would no longer be approached to get them hooked early. Paper products could be made cheaply from quickly renewable resources. The list goes on, but apparently the "War on Drugs" to profit both the law enforcement and prison industries directly and chemical and timber companies indirectly sells better than economic common sense.
Yeah, I exaggerated just a bit. ;)
Evidently you just don't understand. The copy is generated by the one that makes it available.
IIRC, there was a case early on in the RIAA bit where downloading was not considered infringement, primarily because the downloader wouldn't have known until inspecting said download whether it was infringing or not. In any case, if the downloader already owns a copy, him having a local copy is not infringement in any case, because of fair use. As others have said, this is one area that the RIAA/MPAA treads very very lightly because a negative ruling would set a precedent that they could ill afford.