What planet are you from?!? Everyone knows you don't get to be the lowest bidder on a project by giving the customer everything they want! All salesmen lie; the really good salesmen actually know when they are lying. If you didn't fully specify the list of deliverables, the acceptance criteria, and the liquidated damages for failing to meet the criteria was in the contract, then shame on you for signing that contract in the first place! Sure, if you're doing it in house or buying from somebody that gets paid by the hour, then you can incompletely specify and make changes later. But good luck doing that once somebody has agreed on a fixed price for the whole contract!
It's not the relationship, it's the specification. I've never seen a project that had a complete, unambiguous specification, but this one sounds much worse than usual. Sounds like BSkyB went forward on this with this on just a wink and a handshake and figured they'd iron out the details later. Uh, no... the specification needs to be agreed on up front. Sounds like stupid people on both sides of the table to me -- BSkyB stupid for not specifying in the contract exactly what was being delivered and what the acceptance criteria was, and EDS/HP salesmen stupid for responding to all there questions with a "sure, it'll do that!" without having a clue what it would take to actually implement those features.
Just don't mention NMCI(Navy and Marine Corp Intranet). Well, there's your problem right there... when have the Navy and Marine Corp ever managed to agree on ANYTHING?!?
We could do the same thing here too, if it weren't for that pesky "constitution" thing!
Actually, I kinda like the Chinese use of the death sentence for life-threatening corruption. Unfortunately, in this case the misbehavior doesn't appear to be life threatening. (Unless you're one of the human rights activists hacked, and you accidentally said something counter to the interests of the Chinese government on the foolish assumption that your private emails were, in fact, private. In that case, then certainly this hack could be life threatening.)
They're not coming to destroy us. They are doing this to crack down on their own dissidents, because quite frankly, all this new-fangled communication media scares the shit out of them. After all, look at all the trouble it has caused in Iran! Imagine another tiananmen square protest, but this time using Twitter and GPS to avoid the soldiers... can you begin to see why China is desperate to do anything they can to keep these people from communicating with each other? Suddenly you have flash mobs that are much quicker to organize and move than the creaky Chinese bureaucracy. Combine that with the end of the Faustian bargain "Give us economic prosperity and we'll stop complaining about democracy" brought about by the global economic meltdown, and China could have a really big problem on it's hands. They are just being proactive in trying to prevent that happening... wouldn't you?
If the drone is just capturing video of what is out in the open for all to see anyway... If I'm sunbathing nude in my backyard with a solid 8 foot high fence, or in the middle of my 14 acre forested spread, I'd have a pretty reasonable expectation of privacy. Plus, given the British penchant to misuse technology to enforce petty laws, the most common use of these will be to catch zoning ordinance violations anyway. Whereas before you could get away with unpermitted improvements because nobody could see them or nobody complained, now they have a brand new revenue source to help pay for those drones. In some California counties, it is unlawful to cut down an oak tree in your own yard without written permission from the county. Do you think they would hesitate for even a moment to use drones to enforce this otherwise unenforceable law? Infrared technology is not even required for this to be a serious loss to personal freedoms.
Case in point: the Beaverton School district, after months of study, decided to set up a new math curriculum, throw out all their existing math textbooks, and replace them, at a cost of $70,000 for the first year alone. My initial reaction: please tell us the name of the teacher you plan to lay off to afford these textbooks, so that we can honor her with a going away party.
Fortunately, in this case your initial assumption was correct -- Venus is indeed a Homo Sapiens. Nevertheless, some people still refer to her mother as a "bitch". Good luck with your experiments, and remember -- practice makes perfect!
The wooden sticks are much better for high-sticking opponents in the face; the composite sticks just shatter, while the wooden ones deliver a much harder impact before splintering. Sure, it may sound like just a little thing to you and me, but to a hockey player, this is a BIG difference!
People have been experimenting with DIY biology for years. My first experiment is named "Venus", she is 9 years old now and is a sweet, lovable (if hyperactive) cheerleader. Overall, I'd say this experiment was a resounding success, although I am still waiting for others to replicate my results.
I pretty sure the "white powder" was something like powdered sugar, not actually cocaine. I don't believe the TSA can afford to buy significant amounts of real cocaine. This was intended to be used as an exercise for luggage screeners, not for drug-sniffing dogs. The mistake he made was when he decided to give the passenger a hard time for "fun", when the only proper behavior would be to calmly inform her that she had involuntarily been made part of a test of the system.
All modern Macs are perfectly capable of running Windows, or even running both MacOS and Windows at the same time using Boot Camp, Parallels, etc. Furthermore, Microsoft Office has been available for Macs forever; Microsoft is a major Mac software provider. Unlike his comments about Google, Ballmer has never said "I'm gonna kill mother fucking Apple!" I just don't see why Ballmer signing a Mac has any significance at all.
Unfortunately, "smacking the bitch up", while perfectly legal where she comes from, is prohibited by US law. And it's not intentional bad behavior, it's genuine cluelessness. For example, she has a friend who owns a hair salon. She normally charges $150 for hair extensions, but does my wife for free when she can fit her in. And what does my wife do? She usually shows up about 2 hours late for this very generous free treatment. (Her and her friend fight about this all the time, and yes, I side with her friend.) Sure, technically she IS a princess in her culture, but here in the states that is considered pretty rude behavior.
Create open source course materials, and put all the textbook companies out of business! Textbooks should be a collaborative effort between teachers with decades of experience in real classroom settings, not work-for-hire by companies that have a vested interest in revising the text every year just to sell a few more copies. Of course, the lobbyists for the publishing houses might have some objections to this plan...
Unfortunately, tracking all the spammers down and swiftly converting them into cans of "Spiced Ham Substitute" probably violates a whole slew of international laws...
My wife spends several hours a day "yelling" into a cell phone in a language I don't understand. The first annoying thing is, she will try to carry on a conversation with me while she is still on the phone with someone else! The second annoying thing requires some explanation: I enrolled my daughter in hula lessons. I taught my daughter she should respect the teacher. On one of the rare occasions when I couldn't take her myself, my wife took her and spent the entire lesson in the dance room talking loudly on her cellphone while the teacher was trying to teach. Apparently it never occurred to her that she could go out in the hall to use her phone! What's worse... they never said anything to her about it. The teacher waited until the next lesson, and then bitched at me about my wife's behavior! News for the world: I have no control over my wife's behavior. In fact, if I tell her to do something, she is much more likely to do the exact opposite, just to prove she doesn't have to do what I say! Last annoying thing: when I need to use a cell, I tend to lock myself in a bathroom, rather than try to compete with the ambient noise. What people don't seem to understand is that past a certain point, speaking louder and closer to the microphone actually makes the conversation LESS intelligible; it overdrives the amplifiers into distortion. And of course, most people's reaction to be told "I can't hear you clearly" is to TALK LOUDER!
Your post advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(x) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Sure, it will work "perfectly" for about 2 days, until the spammers change their methods to work around it. This is an arms race; there is no "final solution" (although modifying the email protocol to allow authentication of the sender's address would be a big help.)
I've worked 80-hour weeks, and made the following observations: 1) Doing it for a couple weeks is generally ok. Do it for more than 3 or 4 weeks in a row, and it does begin to have serious health side effects. 2) After about 12 hours, your error rate goes increases to the point where you are probably doing more harm than good 3) The best code gets done when people have a chance to step back, reflect on what they are doing, and brainstorm on more efficient ways to reach their goal ("sharpen their axe", so to speak), rather than just keep plugging away at what their first guess for a correct approach was. Sure, sometimes I change my mind too much when faced with a number of equally valid methods, but in general allowing people to actually think about what they are doing does produce better product. These observations apply to development, the experience of managers, QA, or testing may be different.
One of the most destructing things to productivity is bad management. Shortly after I was moved between two teams in the same group at Intel, I asked my team manager if I could take a day off (without pay) to go on a Mt. St. Helens climb with my old team. He refused, claiming "We're doing a new release that day and we need you around to test it." (I was a developer, not a tester. Also, I was a contractor, so technically I could have just told him "fuck you!" and gone anyway.) So, I come in, and wait around for the release. Around 4:30, they finally got the build to work! That's right - I missed out on a team building excursion with a majority of the group so that I could sit around all day doing nothing! It's things like that that make you start looking for a new position; shortly after that, I found one, and announced "It should come as no surprise to anyone that I've found a better place to work."
I agree with you. I believe I made a similar argument a couple months ago that an individual should not be responsible for the entire tree of downloads that originate from them, only for the "first hop" -- people that downloaded directly from them. I believe the RIAA's argument is that anybody in the tree is responsible for the entire tree, which justifies their huge multipliers. I would say that by the time a file has been downloaded several million times, the damage caused by one more incremental download is miniscule.
I agree, "uploading" would be "unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material", and should subject someone who does so to sanctions proportional to the damage done (e.g. lost sales). However, if JT was using bittorent or one of many other peer-to-peer sharing protocols, then JT was not actively uploading, but rather allowing others to potentially download parts of the file from JT's computer for a brief period of time. The RIAA argument that "making available" is exactly the same as "distributing" seems rather tenuous. My entire MP3 directory on my home computer is shared on my home network; it may be possible for someone to hack their way into that network and download those 11,000 files. Am I guilty of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material if that occurs? Furthermore, it is not clear that everyone using P2P software is actually aware that any downloaded files are automatically shared as soon as or even before they complete downloading. I think most of us can agree that Jammie has done something wrong here; what we disagree on is what amount of penalty for this wrongdoing is appropriate.
People simply downloading should be fined the retail cost of the material; even with treble damages (which may be appropriate) this should only be about $3 per song.
Slashdot Mirror
What planet are you from?!? Everyone knows you don't get to be the lowest bidder on a project by giving the customer everything they want! All salesmen lie; the really good salesmen actually know when they are lying. If you didn't fully specify the list of deliverables, the acceptance criteria, and the liquidated damages for failing to meet the criteria was in the contract, then shame on you for signing that contract in the first place! Sure, if you're doing it in house or buying from somebody that gets paid by the hour, then you can incompletely specify and make changes later. But good luck doing that once somebody has agreed on a fixed price for the whole contract!
It's not the relationship, it's the specification. I've never seen a project that had a complete, unambiguous specification, but this one sounds much worse than usual. Sounds like BSkyB went forward on this with this on just a wink and a handshake and figured they'd iron out the details later. Uh, no... the specification needs to be agreed on up front. Sounds like stupid people on both sides of the table to me -- BSkyB stupid for not specifying in the contract exactly what was being delivered and what the acceptance criteria was, and EDS/HP salesmen stupid for responding to all there questions with a "sure, it'll do that!" without having a clue what it would take to actually implement those features.
Just don't mention NMCI(Navy and Marine Corp Intranet). Well, there's your problem right there... when have the Navy and Marine Corp ever managed to agree on ANYTHING?!?
Shouldn't BSkyB just get back whatever they paid EDS/HP for the project, e.g. £48 million? What's the rest of the £200 million/£700 million claim for?
We could do the same thing here too, if it weren't for that pesky "constitution" thing!
Actually, I kinda like the Chinese use of the death sentence for life-threatening corruption. Unfortunately, in this case the misbehavior doesn't appear to be life threatening. (Unless you're one of the human rights activists hacked, and you accidentally said something counter to the interests of the Chinese government on the foolish assumption that your private emails were, in fact, private. In that case, then certainly this hack could be life threatening.)
They're not coming to destroy us. They are doing this to crack down on their own dissidents, because quite frankly, all this new-fangled communication media scares the shit out of them. After all, look at all the trouble it has caused in Iran! Imagine another tiananmen square protest, but this time using Twitter and GPS to avoid the soldiers... can you begin to see why China is desperate to do anything they can to keep these people from communicating with each other? Suddenly you have flash mobs that are much quicker to organize and move than the creaky Chinese bureaucracy. Combine that with the end of the Faustian bargain "Give us economic prosperity and we'll stop complaining about democracy" brought about by the global economic meltdown, and China could have a really big problem on it's hands. They are just being proactive in trying to prevent that happening... wouldn't you?
If the drone is just capturing video of what is out in the open for all to see anyway... If I'm sunbathing nude in my backyard with a solid 8 foot high fence, or in the middle of my 14 acre forested spread, I'd have a pretty reasonable expectation of privacy. Plus, given the British penchant to misuse technology to enforce petty laws, the most common use of these will be to catch zoning ordinance violations anyway. Whereas before you could get away with unpermitted improvements because nobody could see them or nobody complained, now they have a brand new revenue source to help pay for those drones. In some California counties, it is unlawful to cut down an oak tree in your own yard without written permission from the county. Do you think they would hesitate for even a moment to use drones to enforce this otherwise unenforceable law? Infrared technology is not even required for this to be a serious loss to personal freedoms.
Case in point: the Beaverton School district, after months of study, decided to set up a new math curriculum, throw out all their existing math textbooks, and replace them, at a cost of $70,000 for the first year alone. My initial reaction: please tell us the name of the teacher you plan to lay off to afford these textbooks, so that we can honor her with a going away party.
Fortunately, in this case your initial assumption was correct -- Venus is indeed a Homo Sapiens. Nevertheless, some people still refer to her mother as a "bitch". Good luck with your experiments, and remember -- practice makes perfect!
The wooden sticks are much better for high-sticking opponents in the face; the composite sticks just shatter, while the wooden ones deliver a much harder impact before splintering. Sure, it may sound like just a little thing to you and me, but to a hockey player, this is a BIG difference!
People have been experimenting with DIY biology for years. My first experiment is named "Venus", she is 9 years old now and is a sweet, lovable (if hyperactive) cheerleader. Overall, I'd say this experiment was a resounding success, although I am still waiting for others to replicate my results.
You know, not everything in science needs to or should be translated into every day terms.
I'm not clear on what you mean by this... can you please explain it in terms of a car analogy?
I pretty sure the "white powder" was something like powdered sugar, not actually cocaine. I don't believe the TSA can afford to buy significant amounts of real cocaine. This was intended to be used as an exercise for luggage screeners, not for drug-sniffing dogs. The mistake he made was when he decided to give the passenger a hard time for "fun", when the only proper behavior would be to calmly inform her that she had involuntarily been made part of a test of the system.
All modern Macs are perfectly capable of running Windows, or even running both MacOS and Windows at the same time using Boot Camp, Parallels, etc. Furthermore, Microsoft Office has been available for Macs forever; Microsoft is a major Mac software provider. Unlike his comments about Google, Ballmer has never said "I'm gonna kill mother fucking Apple!" I just don't see why Ballmer signing a Mac has any significance at all.
Unfortunately, "smacking the bitch up", while perfectly legal where she comes from, is prohibited by US law. And it's not intentional bad behavior, it's genuine cluelessness. For example, she has a friend who owns a hair salon. She normally charges $150 for hair extensions, but does my wife for free when she can fit her in. And what does my wife do? She usually shows up about 2 hours late for this very generous free treatment. (Her and her friend fight about this all the time, and yes, I side with her friend.) Sure, technically she IS a princess in her culture, but here in the states that is considered pretty rude behavior.
Create open source course materials, and put all the textbook companies out of business! Textbooks should be a collaborative effort between teachers with decades of experience in real classroom settings, not work-for-hire by companies that have a vested interest in revising the text every year just to sell a few more copies. Of course, the lobbyists for the publishing houses might have some objections to this plan...
Unfortunately, tracking all the spammers down and swiftly converting them into cans of "Spiced Ham Substitute" probably violates a whole slew of international laws...
My wife spends several hours a day "yelling" into a cell phone in a language I don't understand. The first annoying thing is, she will try to carry on a conversation with me while she is still on the phone with someone else! The second annoying thing requires some explanation: I enrolled my daughter in hula lessons. I taught my daughter she should respect the teacher. On one of the rare occasions when I couldn't take her myself, my wife took her and spent the entire lesson in the dance room talking loudly on her cellphone while the teacher was trying to teach. Apparently it never occurred to her that she could go out in the hall to use her phone! What's worse... they never said anything to her about it. The teacher waited until the next lesson, and then bitched at me about my wife's behavior! News for the world: I have no control over my wife's behavior. In fact, if I tell her to do something, she is much more likely to do the exact opposite, just to prove she doesn't have to do what I say! Last annoying thing: when I need to use a cell, I tend to lock myself in a bathroom, rather than try to compete with the ambient noise. What people don't seem to understand is that past a certain point, speaking louder and closer to the microphone actually makes the conversation LESS intelligible; it overdrives the amplifiers into distortion. And of course, most people's reaction to be told "I can't hear you clearly" is to TALK LOUDER!
Your post advocates a (x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.) ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business Specifically, your plan fails to account for ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (x) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (x) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook and the following philosophical objections may also apply: ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough Furthermore, this is what I think about you: (x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Sure, it will work "perfectly" for about 2 days, until the spammers change their methods to work around it. This is an arms race; there is no "final solution" (although modifying the email protocol to allow authentication of the sender's address would be a big help.)
In P2P action, too many players would have resorted to this move a last resort.
The TSA employee should be fired... preferably from a large canon.
I've worked 80-hour weeks, and made the following observations: 1) Doing it for a couple weeks is generally ok. Do it for more than 3 or 4 weeks in a row, and it does begin to have serious health side effects. 2) After about 12 hours, your error rate goes increases to the point where you are probably doing more harm than good 3) The best code gets done when people have a chance to step back, reflect on what they are doing, and brainstorm on more efficient ways to reach their goal ("sharpen their axe", so to speak), rather than just keep plugging away at what their first guess for a correct approach was. Sure, sometimes I change my mind too much when faced with a number of equally valid methods, but in general allowing people to actually think about what they are doing does produce better product. These observations apply to development, the experience of managers, QA, or testing may be different.
One of the most destructing things to productivity is bad management. Shortly after I was moved between two teams in the same group at Intel, I asked my team manager if I could take a day off (without pay) to go on a Mt. St. Helens climb with my old team. He refused, claiming "We're doing a new release that day and we need you around to test it." (I was a developer, not a tester. Also, I was a contractor, so technically I could have just told him "fuck you!" and gone anyway.) So, I come in, and wait around for the release. Around 4:30, they finally got the build to work! That's right - I missed out on a team building excursion with a majority of the group so that I could sit around all day doing nothing! It's things like that that make you start looking for a new position; shortly after that, I found one, and announced "It should come as no surprise to anyone that I've found a better place to work."
I agree with you. I believe I made a similar argument a couple months ago that an individual should not be responsible for the entire tree of downloads that originate from them, only for the "first hop" -- people that downloaded directly from them. I believe the RIAA's argument is that anybody in the tree is responsible for the entire tree, which justifies their huge multipliers. I would say that by the time a file has been downloaded several million times, the damage caused by one more incremental download is miniscule.
I agree, "uploading" would be "unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material", and should subject someone who does so to sanctions proportional to the damage done (e.g. lost sales). However, if JT was using bittorent or one of many other peer-to-peer sharing protocols, then JT was not actively uploading, but rather allowing others to potentially download parts of the file from JT's computer for a brief period of time. The RIAA argument that "making available" is exactly the same as "distributing" seems rather tenuous. My entire MP3 directory on my home computer is shared on my home network; it may be possible for someone to hack their way into that network and download those 11,000 files. Am I guilty of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material if that occurs? Furthermore, it is not clear that everyone using P2P software is actually aware that any downloaded files are automatically shared as soon as or even before they complete downloading. I think most of us can agree that Jammie has done something wrong here; what we disagree on is what amount of penalty for this wrongdoing is appropriate.
People simply downloading should be fined the retail cost of the material; even with treble damages (which may be appropriate) this should only be about $3 per song.