The government will just strong arm (threaten) the university into turning it over to them
According to the article it's funded by DARPA. You know, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The people who really invented the internet? Part of the Department of Defense? I don't think they'll need to do anything to force them to turn it over... It's already theirs.
Not to mention the other problem with the parent's bike analogy (which is often the problem with these "stealing" arguments). My use of your open wireless internet connection does not preclude you from simultaneously doing so. If I took your bike, while I was using it you would be unable to do so. While I'm using your wireless internet connection, you are still able to use it as well (your performance may be degraded but you are still able to use it). If you don't want degraded performance, there is a solution called WEP.
I just don't understand these analogies. A far better analogy would be if a business left their front door hanging wide open, but put a small sign in a back office that said "closed", and then charged anyone who entered the property with trespass. Just absurd.
Actually, it is quite easy to find out how they voted. Don't just believe that it was all "largely by party lines" as most of the major news media is reporting. For example, my Democrat representative voted against the amendment (and I just wrote him to let him know I noticed).
One of the problems with our system is that these politicians think that they can often get away with voting against their constituents interest because no one will bother to look up and see how they actually voted. As long as the "party" votes the way they should, most people assume it was the "other guy" who caused the measure to fail. The truth is, 58 Democrats voted against this measure (and 11 Republicans voted for it). It wasn't just one or two who switched sides here.
It probably won't last long under Slashdot's brunt, but I pulled a copy out of my browser cache (I viewed it quite a while before it went down) and I threw it up on my old Geocities page. Someone please grab this and put up a real cache!!!
And for that matter why is it your business what they do with their money?
I, personally, am not concerned what you do with your money, it's more what you're doing to our air, water, and climate. As you stated in your posting, you already have two SUV's. How many times do you need to use both SUV's at the same time?
It sounds to me like you would probably be better served by 1 large SUV and 1 small efficient car. I am a firm believer in personal rights and freedom. I believe that you should be allowed to do whatever you want, whenever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt me (or anyone else).
Maybe you don't fit the model, but... Driving 2 full-size SUV's to work everyday (and using the fact that you actually make use of it a handful of times on the weekends as justification) is hurting me.
NVIDIA GeForce 6600, 6600 LE, 7800 GT, or Quadro FX 4500 video
The only video card options listed on the Apple Store currently are the 6600 and the Quadro FX 4500, which leaves quite a gap between low-end and high-end. Hopefully they will offer 7800-series cards, but they don't appear to be available currently.
I'm not going to even begin to try to address your third paragraph, which has been addressed by others (and misses the point of the parent entirely), but...
My buddy runs a tiny little graphic design shop, and has had clients refuse to pay for what things actually cost to work on them. My buddy's response is to kindly inform them that until he transfers the copyright...
That sounds to me as though your buddy is running a tattoo shop (I could be wrong but that's how it sounds, and it doesn't much matter in any case). Either way, I am reasonably sure that his activities (if he does this as a commercial venture) would be held to be "work for hire" (just like all the graphic design work I do at my job). In "work for hire" cases, the copyright is typically AUTOMATICALLY owned by the commisioner of the work, not by the artist. For example, when I create a logo for my company, the company owns it, not me. This applies EVEN if I decided to do the logo on my own, and EVEN if I then think it is really cool, and EVEN if I then quit the job. How do you think the execs at the MPAA GET all the copyrights on all those movies? Do you think they do it all themselves, holding the camera, and directing the actors? No, they hire other people to be the director, and actors, and scripwriter, and gaffer, and so on. If work-for-hire provisions didn't exist in copyright law, none of this (the parent of the whole thread) would be an issue because group-IP would be equally owned by all participants (or perhaps no one). Now, your buddy would have a perfect right to threaten his clients with a contract-dispute type of claim, but he certainly would not have the right to go after them for copyright infringement! Not only is it almost certainly work for hire, HE was the one who committed the infringing act (by creating the work), not the client!
Copyright is set up this way for a reason. In this particular instance, I can think of perfectly valid reasons that a customer might refuse to pay for work. If it was not completed correctly, was not completed at all, cost more than was agreed, or was just plain bad. I'm not (of course) saying that your friend's particular situation was this way (I'm sure he is a wonderfully talented artist and good buisnessman), but I can imagine legitimate disputes. IANAL, but I suspect that the copyright issue could go either way, and he would be better suited to check with a lawyer before making empty threats (and getting called on it). There are effective tactics he can use, but using copyright as a weapon in his case could backfire.
It is almost difficult to stop laughing long enough to respond to this comment, but here goes...
You say...
it's the job of the government to protect the people, and one way they do this is through making drugs illegal
And to back this up you say...
what happens when they overdose? Leave them in the streets because they dont have health insurance? Or do we hospitalize them... give them medicine... rehab them... ??? With who's money.. this would costs tens of thousands of dollars per person every time they're found in the street?
And it costs less to incarcerate drug users? Check your facts, simply do a google search for drug prison treatment cost for plenty of documentation on this fallacy. Just as one small example, Arizona passed Proposition 102 last year which focused on diverting nonviolent drug offenders from the prison system into treatment programs... Then the Arizona Supreme Court issued a report saying that this program saved more than $2.5 million in its first fiscal year of operation, and did more to reduce drug use and crime than any other state program.
As far as your causes crime point. This is almost laughable, if it weren't so dangerous. This, first of all, seems premised on the idea that drug use would skyrocket if it were de-criminalized. This I believe is blatantly false (who doesn't do heroin because it is illegal), but regardless... Just because it is de-criminalized, does not mean the sale of addictive drugs can't be regulated. You can easily require that treatment options be reviewed with purchasers, that money to buy drugs comes from verifyable sources (no cash provision), and a whole slew of other protections. Certainly, there would be abuses of these policies, but it would be more effective than the current state of affairs. The street crack dealer doesn't give a damn about where the cash came from, and enforces his turf with assault rifles. Of course, so many people look at the problems with the dealers as, thats NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), so its not my problem.
I think we need to stop the disinformation that the "war" is based on and be honest about the problem. The best way to keep your kids from using drugs is to tell them the truth!
It's funny, but despite your claim that "legalizing things doesn't prevent kids from using them" it was always much easier for me as an adolescent to acquire pot than it was alcohol. I imagine that this is still very much the case... I wonder how many others had this same experience?
Many years ago I had a discussion with a police officer about the state of the "War on Drugs" (as I worked in high-school at a convenience store/gas station and got to know quite a few of the local cops), and I think he put it best...
He said eventually we will de-criminalize marijuana, and probably should de-criminalize all the other illegal drugs. Why? Eventually people will get sick of the crime. People will get sick of hearing about 12 year olds on street corners with assault rifles killing other 12 year old kids over the illicit drug trade.
I hope he is right. I am sick of the crime.
Just because you make something illegal, doesn't make people stop doing it... It just pushes it underground... Creates a black market. If they ever again criminalized alcohol, I know plenty of regular, non-drug using people who wouldn't be using their bathtubs for baths anymore!
Also your other point of re-ripping. With an MP3, I can convert it to an AA3, and vice versa using any number of converters
I believe the original poster's point was that if you have the original CD, and a new higher-quality format comes along (or you somehow get gobs of hard drive space and decide to use FLAC) you can re-encode your tracks and benefit from the higher quality format. A 96kbps MP3 is going to sound like a 96kpbs MP3 no matter what format you re-convert it to later. MP3 is a lossy format... Once you have thrown out the audio data by encoding it to MP3, you can't "get it back" by converting it to AAC (or FLAC or any other format). When the data is gone, the data is gone.
You seem to disagree with yourself... You state that "you can upgrade most of the important parts in a tower Mac", yet you say that the reason OSX is so fluid is that you know each Mac is "going to have such and such a graphics card or a certain modem/ethernet chipset/other piece of hardware".
That is the reason that Macs continued to work fairly well before, when using an amazingly outdated OS (MacOS 7 -8 -9), but has very little to do with the current situation. I am using a highly modified G4 right now to type this. I've got the same type of RAM as an x86, the same type of Hard Drives (they are ATA now, not SCSI anymore), a "Windows-Only" DVD-RW (Sony DRX-500ULX), a Windows-branded Zip drive, a Microsoft Mouse, an ATI 9800 Pro video card (which the G4 certainly didn't ship with)... I have never had any driver problems with it at all (except for the Epson printer, but that is Epson's fault, not Apple's). Neither have I with Windows, for that matter, since I left Win9x behind long ago for Windows 2000 and then XP. It is about the quality of the parts that you buy, not the architecture of the chipset/processor.
I agree that making an x86 port of OSX would probably not be the wisest business decision for Apple (though 8 years ago I think it may have been another story), but it doesn't mean I can't dream.... But what I would really like to see, and what I was really asking for, was Consumer Choice.
If Apple would allow other hardware companies to build and sell alternative motherboards - based on their newest chipsets and processors, they would finally have some real competition. You either think competition is a good thing, or a bad thing, I suppose. But Apple's product is good enough, and designed well enough, that I think they would do just fine. I think they would only then present some real competition to Microsoft. You can't have it both ways if you want to play in the big time... but I suppose Apple never has been sure it wanted to play in the big time.
Unfortunately, they always seem to assume that they would lose...
I realize that you can use bash as the shell, but the default is tch, and since most of the documentation, etc is geared for tch, I figured it was best to figure out Apple's default. Of course, they are changing it to bash now with 10.3
Well, discounting the fact that you are comparing a 1.8GHz Opteron to a 1.8GHz G5, when in this case 1.8 != 1.8 (they aren't the same processor, nor are they even the same type), you do illustrate the main reason that I don't use a Mac at home.
I can't build one myself.
At least not easily, and certainly not a G5. When will Apple let those of us who love their software let us choose our own hardware?
That said, I use a Dual G4 at work (graphics and multimedia shop). I hadn't used a Mac seriously since the original PowerMacs came out (MacOS 7.x), but when I got this new job I had to learn again. This consisted mainly of memorizing a range of bizarre keyboard shortcuts, learning NetInfo (which rules), and re-training myself to think in tch instead of bash (horrah Panther). As a credit to the eloquence of the OS, this took about a month. OSX, while not perfect by any means, is a wonderful OS, and is superior to Win32 in many ways. Please, oh, please Apple make a x86 port, or allow Asus to build/sell G5 motherboards in an ATX configuration!
If only Linux had the Multimedia application support... or if there was a VM for Aqua Programs for Linux.
In the end, the only entity that clearly benefits from all this is Microsoft, cause it's just weakining faith in Linux.
Actually, as I had pointed out in a previous comment, and as is blatantly illustrated here, there are two "entities" that benefit from SCO's claims. Microsoft being one, and SCO (and their stock-laden executives) being the other.
Actually, I think you miss the point, at least where it comes to the point of the case. The actual complaint (amended) reads:
4. The UNIX software distribution vendors, such as IBM, are contractually and legally prohibited from giving away or disclosing proprietary UNIX source code and methods for external business purposes, such as contributions to the Linux community or otherwise using UNIX for the benefit of others. This prohibition extends to derivative work products that are modifications of, or based on, UNIX System V source code or technology. IBM and certain other UNIX software distributors are violating this prohibition, en masse, as though no prohibition or proprietary restrictions exist at all with respect to the UNIX technology. As a result of IBM's wholesale disregard of its contractual and legal obligations to SCO, Linux 2.4.x and the development Linux kernel, 2.5.x, are filled with UNIX source code, derivative works and methods. As such, Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V.
5. As set forth in more detail below, IBM has breached its obligations to SCO, induced and encouraged others to breach their obligations to SCO, interfered with SCO's business, and engaged in unfair competition with SCO, including by:
a) misusing UNIX software licensed by SCO to IBM and Sequent;
b) inducing, encouraging, and enabling others to misuse and misappropriate SCO's proprietary software; and
c) incorporating (and inducing, encouraging, and enabling others to incorporate) SCO's proprietary software into Linux open-source software offerings.
Which I take to mean that SCO believes that IBM both copied verbatim lines of code from System V UNIX (which SCO at least appears to have some sort of a copyright claim to), and inappropriately used intimate knowledge of SCO's System V UNIX source to create its own "derivative work products that are modifications of, or based on, UNIX System V source"... by adding the code to linux.
However, as is pointed out in It Ain't Necessarily SCO by Rob Landley and Eric Raymond there are many problems with this complaint. One of which is that derivative works are expressly permitted (and are in fact deemed to belong to the creator, in this case IBM) in the contract that SCO is disputing, which BTW was between ATT and IBM, not SCO and IBM.
As far as your point about the media. I think you were at least partly on there, though I think that this had much more to do with SCO's motivation. Also, notice where that link came from. I think they may have much more motivation to "make everybody believe, that Linux is illegal."
The RIAA has and continues to make a mess of things for itself and everyone else. If they would have just taken advantage of music downloading back in the Napster days instead of acting like a bunch of Fat Ass Morons, then everyone could have been happy. Now instead of profiting, they continue to pi$$ off their current, former, and potential customers.
This is because the RIAA's entire issue with Peer-to-Peer file trading NEVER WAS about money in the first place. It was always about control of the distribution venue of mainstream music.
It is certainly possible for a Peer-to-Peer system to be set up that would provide payment to the rightful copyright owners, while still allowing us to use the system easily for a reasonable price. Not through DRM, but simply by tracking what is downloaded in aggregate. In fact, the "Napster" model of a P2P system would have probably been easier to implement this on than the current distributed networks. The RIAA fought the efforts of Napster to "go legit" too. Again, this was never about money.
The RIAA has been able to control mainstream radio through "payola" for the past 30-40 years (or more some would say). They controlled the physcal distribution venues (record stores) in much the same way, coupled with the financial hurdles that have to be overcome to release a new album internationally. And starting in the early 80's, they began to exert control over a new marketing machine, MTV.
But suddenly, a few irreverant kids figured out a way to circumvent all of that. On a P2P system, what is popular is distributed, rather than what is distributed is popular. It also eliminated the financial barrier to worldwide distribution. The independant labels, and the artists themselves, would have an equal opportunity to distribute their work themselves on equal footing with the RIAA labels. If P2P systems became the primary distribution venue of pop music, the artists would not NEED the RIAA anymore. They could just distribute the music directly themselves with only the cost of a nice computer and a SDSL line.
That is what scared them. That is why they fight us.
I think that the best thing that those of us who love P2P could do to save it would be to create a system that does DRM our way. That justly allows payment to be given to the artists who create the music, without trampling on our First Sale and Fair Use rights. One that doesn't rely on the RIAA (or ASCAP) to collect royalties, and that allows ALL artists (ourselves included) to offer our work to the world on an equal playing field with the RIAA-employed artists. To stop complaining that the RIAA does DRM wrong, and do it ourselves!
Slashdot Mirror
According to the article it's funded by DARPA. You know, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The people who really invented the internet? Part of the Department of Defense? I don't think they'll need to do anything to force them to turn it over... It's already theirs.
I just don't understand these analogies. A far better analogy would be if a business left their front door hanging wide open, but put a small sign in a back office that said "closed", and then charged anyone who entered the property with trespass. Just absurd.
One of the problems with our system is that these politicians think that they can often get away with voting against their constituents interest because no one will bother to look up and see how they actually voted. As long as the "party" votes the way they should, most people assume it was the "other guy" who caused the measure to fail. The truth is, 58 Democrats voted against this measure (and 11 Republicans voted for it). It wasn't just one or two who switched sides here.
Look up how your representatives voted here! And then email them about it. So you know, you can always check the voting record of your reps as it happens at the Office of the Clerk - Legislative Activities web site (use the drop down on the right side labeled House Floor Proceedings -- or the calendar if you can get it to work).
http://www.geocities.com/ri0n/ars_nsa_article.html
I heard a song once about this...
This is the war that never ends
It just goes on and on my friends...
And for that matter why is it your business what they do with their money? I, personally, am not concerned what you do with your money, it's more what you're doing to our air, water, and climate. As you stated in your posting, you already have two SUV's. How many times do you need to use both SUV's at the same time? It sounds to me like you would probably be better served by 1 large SUV and 1 small efficient car. I am a firm believer in personal rights and freedom. I believe that you should be allowed to do whatever you want, whenever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt me (or anyone else). Maybe you don't fit the model, but... Driving 2 full-size SUV's to work everyday (and using the fact that you actually make use of it a handful of times on the weekends as justification) is hurting me.
NVIDIA GeForce 6600, 6600 LE, 7800 GT, or Quadro FX 4500 video The only video card options listed on the Apple Store currently are the 6600 and the Quadro FX 4500, which leaves quite a gap between low-end and high-end. Hopefully they will offer 7800-series cards, but they don't appear to be available currently.
I'm not going to even begin to try to address your third paragraph, which has been addressed by others (and misses the point of the parent entirely), but ...
My buddy runs a tiny little graphic design shop, and has had clients refuse to pay for what things actually cost to work on them. My buddy's response is to kindly inform them that until he transfers the copyright...
That sounds to me as though your buddy is running a tattoo shop (I could be wrong but that's how it sounds, and it doesn't much matter in any case). Either way, I am reasonably sure that his activities (if he does this as a commercial venture) would be held to be "work for hire" (just like all the graphic design work I do at my job). In "work for hire" cases, the copyright is typically AUTOMATICALLY owned by the commisioner of the work, not by the artist. For example, when I create a logo for my company, the company owns it, not me. This applies EVEN if I decided to do the logo on my own, and EVEN if I then think it is really cool, and EVEN if I then quit the job. How do you think the execs at the MPAA GET all the copyrights on all those movies? Do you think they do it all themselves, holding the camera, and directing the actors? No, they hire other people to be the director, and actors, and scripwriter, and gaffer, and so on. If work-for-hire provisions didn't exist in copyright law, none of this (the parent of the whole thread) would be an issue because group-IP would be equally owned by all participants (or perhaps no one). Now, your buddy would have a perfect right to threaten his clients with a contract-dispute type of claim, but he certainly would not have the right to go after them for copyright infringement! Not only is it almost certainly work for hire, HE was the one who committed the infringing act (by creating the work), not the client!
Copyright is set up this way for a reason. In this particular instance, I can think of perfectly valid reasons that a customer might refuse to pay for work. If it was not completed correctly, was not completed at all, cost more than was agreed, or was just plain bad. I'm not (of course) saying that your friend's particular situation was this way (I'm sure he is a wonderfully talented artist and good buisnessman), but I can imagine legitimate disputes. IANAL, but I suspect that the copyright issue could go either way, and he would be better suited to check with a lawyer before making empty threats (and getting called on it). There are effective tactics he can use, but using copyright as a weapon in his case could backfire.
/me thinks by "all one base" he was referring to the linux kernel, not Red Hat. Troll.
As far as your causes crime point. This is almost laughable, if it weren't so dangerous. This, first of all, seems premised on the idea that drug use would skyrocket if it were de-criminalized. This I believe is blatantly false (who doesn't do heroin because it is illegal), but regardless ... Just because it is de-criminalized, does not mean the sale of addictive drugs can't be regulated. You can easily require that treatment options be reviewed with purchasers, that money to buy drugs comes from verifyable sources (no cash provision), and a whole slew of other protections. Certainly, there would be abuses of these policies, but it would be more effective than the current state of affairs. The street crack dealer doesn't give a damn about where the cash came from, and enforces his turf with assault rifles. Of course, so many people look at the problems with the dealers as, thats NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), so its not my problem.
I think we need to stop the disinformation that the "war" is based on and be honest about the problem. The best way to keep your kids from using drugs is to tell them the truth!
Many years ago I had a discussion with a police officer about the state of the "War on Drugs" (as I worked in high-school at a convenience store/gas station and got to know quite a few of the local cops), and I think he put it best ...
He said eventually we will de-criminalize marijuana, and probably should de-criminalize all the other illegal drugs. Why? Eventually people will get sick of the crime. People will get sick of hearing about 12 year olds on street corners with assault rifles killing other 12 year old kids over the illicit drug trade.
I hope he is right. I am sick of the crime.
Just because you make something illegal, doesn't make people stop doing it ... It just pushes it underground ... Creates a black market. If they ever again criminalized alcohol, I know plenty of regular, non-drug using people who wouldn't be using their bathtubs for baths anymore!
I believe the original poster's point was that if you have the original CD, and a new higher-quality format comes along (or you somehow get gobs of hard drive space and decide to use FLAC) you can re-encode your tracks and benefit from the higher quality format. A 96kbps MP3 is going to sound like a 96kpbs MP3 no matter what format you re-convert it to later. MP3 is a lossy format ... Once you have thrown out the audio data by encoding it to MP3, you can't "get it back" by converting it to AAC (or FLAC or any other format). When the data is gone, the data is gone.
That is the reason that Macs continued to work fairly well before, when using an amazingly outdated OS (MacOS 7 -8 -9), but has very little to do with the current situation. I am using a highly modified G4 right now to type this. I've got the same type of RAM as an x86, the same type of Hard Drives (they are ATA now, not SCSI anymore), a "Windows-Only" DVD-RW (Sony DRX-500ULX), a Windows-branded Zip drive, a Microsoft Mouse, an ATI 9800 Pro video card (which the G4 certainly didn't ship with) ... I have never had any driver problems with it at all (except for the Epson printer, but that is Epson's fault, not Apple's). Neither have I with Windows, for that matter, since I left Win9x behind long ago for Windows 2000 and then XP. It is about the quality of the parts that you buy, not the architecture of the chipset/processor.
I agree that making an x86 port of OSX would probably not be the wisest business decision for Apple (though 8 years ago I think it may have been another story), but it doesn't mean I can't dream .... But what I would really like to see, and what I was really asking for, was Consumer Choice.
If Apple would allow other hardware companies to build and sell alternative motherboards - based on their newest chipsets and processors, they would finally have some real competition. You either think competition is a good thing, or a bad thing, I suppose. But Apple's product is good enough, and designed well enough, that I think they would do just fine. I think they would only then present some real competition to Microsoft. You can't have it both ways if you want to play in the big time ... but I suppose Apple never has been sure it wanted to play in the big time.
Unfortunately, they always seem to assume that they would lose ...
I realize that you can use bash as the shell, but the default is tch, and since most of the documentation, etc is geared for tch, I figured it was best to figure out Apple's default. Of course, they are changing it to bash now with 10.3
I can't build one myself.
At least not easily, and certainly not a G5. When will Apple let those of us who love their software let us choose our own hardware?
That said, I use a Dual G4 at work (graphics and multimedia shop). I hadn't used a Mac seriously since the original PowerMacs came out (MacOS 7.x), but when I got this new job I had to learn again. This consisted mainly of memorizing a range of bizarre keyboard shortcuts, learning NetInfo (which rules), and re-training myself to think in tch instead of bash (horrah Panther). As a credit to the eloquence of the OS, this took about a month. OSX, while not perfect by any means, is a wonderful OS, and is superior to Win32 in many ways. Please, oh, please Apple make a x86 port, or allow Asus to build/sell G5 motherboards in an ATX configuration!
If only Linux had the Multimedia application support ... or if there was a VM for Aqua Programs for Linux.
Unfortunately, VirtualPC won't run on the new G5s ... yet.
SCO wins the whole thing, and you have to pay them whatever they want to charge for Linux. That would be worse ...
Actually, as I had pointed out in a previous comment, and as is blatantly illustrated here, there are two "entities" that benefit from SCO's claims. Microsoft being one, and SCO (and their stock-laden executives) being the other.
Be sure to note where that second link came from.
As far as your point about the media. I think you were at least partly on there, though I think that this had much more to do with SCO's motivation. Also, notice where that link came from. I think they may have much more motivation to "make everybody believe, that Linux is illegal."
It is certainly possible for a Peer-to-Peer system to be set up that would provide payment to the rightful copyright owners, while still allowing us to use the system easily for a reasonable price. Not through DRM, but simply by tracking what is downloaded in aggregate. In fact, the "Napster" model of a P2P system would have probably been easier to implement this on than the current distributed networks. The RIAA fought the efforts of Napster to "go legit" too. Again, this was never about money.
The RIAA has been able to control mainstream radio through "payola" for the past 30-40 years (or more some would say). They controlled the physcal distribution venues (record stores) in much the same way, coupled with the financial hurdles that have to be overcome to release a new album internationally. And starting in the early 80's, they began to exert control over a new marketing machine, MTV.
But suddenly, a few irreverant kids figured out a way to circumvent all of that. On a P2P system, what is popular is distributed, rather than what is distributed is popular. It also eliminated the financial barrier to worldwide distribution. The independant labels, and the artists themselves, would have an equal opportunity to distribute their work themselves on equal footing with the RIAA labels. If P2P systems became the primary distribution venue of pop music, the artists would not NEED the RIAA anymore. They could just distribute the music directly themselves with only the cost of a nice computer and a SDSL line.
That is what scared them. That is why they fight us.
I think that the best thing that those of us who love P2P could do to save it would be to create a system that does DRM our way. That justly allows payment to be given to the artists who create the music, without trampling on our First Sale and Fair Use rights. One that doesn't rely on the RIAA (or ASCAP) to collect royalties, and that allows ALL artists (ourselves included) to offer our work to the world on an equal playing field with the RIAA-employed artists. To stop complaining that the RIAA does DRM wrong, and do it ourselves!
I think THAT is their biggest fear.