Wrong. Digital distribution is the whole ball of wax. Where piracy is going to end up is destroying all value that recorded music, recorded movies, digital books and anything else "digital".
Why "buy" when it is all free? It is virtually assured that everything that is released will be pirated today, so it is available for free. The pirates have more bandwidth than any commercial interest can ever assemble, so you can download a movie faster than you can buy it. Today the limitation is both consumer bandwidth and popularity, both of which are increasing daily.
There is no way any media company can hope to compete with this so we are seeing the last gasp of a dying beast. The have to fight with everything they have because the alternative is oblivion. And oblivion it surely is as there is no real hope in sight.
I don't know anyone that pays for downloads. I can't imagine anyone being silly enough to do so when it is all available for free. Sure, I'd like to think people have morals and understand that just because it is on the Internet doesn't mean that it should all be free - but I have to live in the real world. And today the real world is the world of the pirate.
Problem is, DVD's are pirated. Nobody gets any money from those and it shouldn't be too much longer until P2P usage exceeds the capability of WalMart to distribute DVDs to the masses. Sure, it will take faster download speeds than most people have today, but it is certainly coming. And there is no stopping it because the materials will be stored offshore.
So why would I go to a theater and pay $10 for a ticket when I can download the movie in an evening for nothing? And probably download it even before it is out in the theater near me.
The only way they get to keep revenue for movies is to not make DVDs and return to theater-only showings. You missed it in the theater? Fine, then it will be on TV in four or five years. Or maybe re-released to the theater. But if it comes out on DVD then nobody has to go to the theater, ever.
It is same thing with musicians losing revenue from recorded music and only getting paid for performances. The theater is the performance venue for movies.
Starting with the the assumption that it is OK to take stuff without paying for it from "evil corporations", it isn't that far from saying it is OK to take your stuff without paying for it as well. If I can get away with it as easily as I can take music and movies.
If you aren't using strong encryption and locked-down systems, it is your own fault anyway. And if you are managing everything like that you are getting probed 100 times a day. Sort of like living in a castle, huh?
Face it, to use the Internet intelligently you have to have a "fortress mentality."
When it works, this sounds like a really good system. Unfortunately right now facial recognition doesn't work all that well.
This is one of those issues where you get to choose whether or not it is good for the police force to be inefficient. If they are, there are lots of people on the street that should not be and some in jail that should not be. If the police were efficient there would be no criminals walking the streets and nobody in jail that didn't belong there. Sounds pretty good for the police to be efficient unless you are a criminal.
Today your average person can feel pretty secure in the knowledge that they can freely commit crimes without much fear of being caught. This could be the beginning of a change in that.
There is of course "Universal Disk Format" also known as UDF. It was designed to be the ultimate in file systems and applicable to all media types.
Unfortunately, it is extremely fragile with errors leading to loss of all files on the media and consumes vast quantities of space due to use of entire sectors for structures that take far less than a sector.
There are currently a large number of implementations of UDF, mostly compatible with each other, for CDs and DVDs. I do not believe it is supported for hard drives on Windows or OSX at the present time. It was used for some manufacturer's DVD-RAM drives but not all. Yet another reason why there was limited compatibility of DVD-RAM discs.
Today, the most common "cybercrime" is child pornography. It consumes the time of vast number of forensic professionals.
One of the most common excuses is "Oh, I don't know how THAT got there." The incredibly stupid have their collection in a folder called "Kiddy Porn". One step above that would be people with it "hidden" somehow. Immediately upon finding something hidden the excuse about not knowing it was there - downloaded by some mysterous popup, for example - goes out the window.
In this way, having hidden information on your hard drive is extremely significant. Because it shows intent.
And the one flaw with this is that there isn't any "evidence" against the person until the person is identified. Woops. There is also a little problem - there is no one-to-one mapping of IP addresses to people. You can tie the IP address to a computer but it is completely unknown who was sitting at the keyboard.
Oh, you can guess. And most of the time you'd be right. But it isn't proof. I suppose in a country where people are put to death for having the wrong skin color in the wrong place that you could probably lose a lawsuit because your computer did something illegal. But the way this is set up today there is no proof. At a minimum I would think you would need a witness that saw you uploading at the exact time the alleged activity took place.
The final note on this would be if someone created a "Trojan uploader" that was installed via email worm. You get it on your computer and it uploads music and video files without your knowledge. Or, at least your direct knowledge. Then your computer is independently performing illegal acts anyone participating. This would pretty much end the possibility of prosecuting anyone for anything involving the Internet.
Emailed a threatening letter to the White House? Must have been MalMail. This is Windows, after all.
Uploading copyrighted music? That SneakUploader is going around again. Have to clean the machine.
Stabbed your wife 37 times with a dull fork? I'm afraid you're gonna have to take the rap for that one. Windows may be bad, but it isn't that bad yet.
Why? Everything you do on the Internet is completely anonymous unless you (or your ISP) rats you out.
If all they have is an IP address it does not show anything about who was at the keyboard. If they get that far, they can examine the computer and find pirated files. This still does not say who was at the keyboard when that occurred. Are you responsible for everything your computer does? Ever heard of spyware and BackOrifice? Of course you can't be held responsible for files on your computer.
If the University doesn't consider the "account holder" to be responsible for all activity on the connection, then it could have been your Auntie Em or Cousin Bo. Or the guy leeching WiFi in the parking lot.
The real question is if the RIAA has ever actually filed a lawsuit and won. So far, all the information I've seen says they have never, ever won a lawsuit only convinced some people to settle without a trial.
If that is correct, then you are most certainly justified in your opinion.
I suspect they have won far more than they have lost and are on-target 99% of the time. For various reasons such wins are never reported. They aren't "newsworthy" in the current sense of the word. If this is the case, then things are a little different than the "popular thinking" would seem to indicate.
Yahoo shows you ads with the listings. The ads pay for the listings. Would you want ads popping up on your Tivo? No? Well, that's why you are paying.
If the owner of the content believed you wouldn't redistribute their content in ways they do not sanction, they might allow Tivo to record it to such an unencumbered format. Problem is, the content owners know for a fact that while you personally may not redistribute people in general will.
How much would you sell your commercial-free archive for? Wouldn't this tend to diminish (if not eliminate) the value of the boxed DVD set the content owner wants to sell? Oh yeah, since they broadcast it they have no rights to the material after that, right? Why should the content owner help in creating a competitor?
Absolutely, let the government have SSN's. They belong to them.
Banks and credit companies should be using something else. They should also (now) be aware that an SSN is meaningless and everyone has had theirs passed around on hacker sites at least once. So when someone comes in with an SSN and a name but not a certified copy of a birth certificate and five or six other documents that would tend to prove who the person on the other side of the desk is, they wouldnt' just give out a $10,000 unsecured loan.
Right now with an SSN I can go into most merchants and buy at least $5,000 worth of stuff just by filling out a form with an SSN and a few other details. This needs to stop because neither the merchant or the credit company has any idea who they are dealing with.
You could just start using pirated software as well. Level the playing field.
I suspect in a few years the concept of "piracy" will be something that is talked about in retirement homes and warehouses for the dying only. On a global scale, without any effective enforcement, piracy will be the rule.
Today almost nobody under 30 understands there is anything wrong with it - it is just how they get their music, movies and software. It is there, free for the taking, so they take it. They laugh at the "3 steps to the software you need" spam because it implies paying some criminal for what is free to download.
The "Apple strategy" of making software development costly is a failed strategy, as shown by the ratio of applications for the Mac world vs. PC world.
The point to remember about Microsoft is that their products are good enough for the majority of users or at least tolerable. Also, a huge number of problems in Windows are due to environmental considerations. If you install hardware with flakey drivers, you get crashes. How many hardware companies are out there developing their own drivers and not getting them certified? Contrast this with the Mac world where the driver authors are mostly Apple employees.
Windows suffers from a couple of fundamental design decisions that affect everyone. One of these is that it is supposed to be extremely flexible, so flexible that it can really hurt itself. For example, running any sort of script or executable code in the context of reading an email message is just plain wrong - but it is possible to build applications that make use of this capability with Outlook and (I believe) Outlook Express. This should never have happened but ripping this functionality away from the product would cripple some applications.
Also, it has been all about backwards compatability since the beginning of Windows. The incredible amount of damage this has caused has also meant that old applications written for DOS would run on Windows Me. Was it worth it? Absolutely, if you have a business dependent on that backwards compatibility.
Would it be better if application developers were trained and certified by Microsoft before being allowed to turn their applications loose on the world? It might make for a more stable experience for users but it would have utterly stifled the development process. Clearly the direction has been for more badly-written applications instead of fewer stable ones. The business case for doing this is obvious and I think Microsoft took the right approach.
Problem is that you can't convict anybody of anything when the Internet is involved.
How do you prove, even with a preponderance of the evidence, that person X was at the keyboard instead of person Y. Or it might have been Z out in the parking lot on an open access point. You can't prove it, so no prosecution is possible.
OK, the general attitude here is "I'll have my music and nobody is gonna stop me!"
The real question is has the RIAA ever won in court? Obviously, the uninformed opinion here is no, but has it happened?
The second point is can anyone be successfully sued in civil court for anything on the Internet? Assuming they do not brag about it on open forums or otherwise admit their actions, it would seem the general opinion here is that since nobody saw you do it, it cannot be proven who did it. Therefore, no responsibility exists. This seems like a very dangerous position to take because it pretty much establishes a legal defense for any sort of action, legal or not, on the Internet. Does this sound like a good way to go? Should use of the Internet convey immunity?
Sounds clearly like a rabid squirrel. This is the sort of behavior that is expected from rabid animals. Each of the people bitten are probably in for a long series of uncomfortable shots.
And exactly what is wrong with dying? It was the only option before the drug. It was the only option for thousands of years.
As we haven't ventured off the planet, every single person is consuming part of a finite pool of resources. When the resources are gone, that is it. No more people. We are now consuming resources at a pace never before seen - because the population has never been this high. With this population, the finite pool of resources aren't going to last anywhere near as long as they would if there were fewer people.
The choice is clear: fewer people or more resources. I don't see anyone making gathering of off-planet resources a priority now, so fewer people is currently the only option available.
We have circumvented, evaded or put off every natural method for population control. We aren't going to be seeing any massive plagues or other mass die-offs any longer. So it is up to us to solve this problem. Pollution is a population-driven problem. Resource consumption is a population-driven problem. Some people believe that climate change is a population-driven problem. I'm sure we can find someone that believes volcanoes, hurricanes and tsunamis are population-driven as well.
Isn't it the President of South Africa the guy that believes that HIV and AIDS aren't linked in any way? Doesn't he also believe that you can't get HIV through sex? More on point, isn't South Africa also making laws and government funding decisions based on this sort of stuff?
So why would anyone believe a pharmaceutical company (or anybody else with an education) when they have such find examples of leaders right there?
Problem is the "more secure" modem is pitched to the customer as something that is optional, good for more technical users and not really necessary for the "normal home user". The ISPs are making any more money off the more-expensive modem and they certainly aren't getting more customers that way.
However, if they tell someone all sorts of scary stories they just may lose a customer.
We are still in a developing market where the competitors are fighting for market share and penetration. Why ever in the world would they do something that could scare a customer off?
When a user clicks on a link and is prompted to "run or save" some executable program what should they do? Of course, if the previous message told them to "just click run" they are going to just click the Run button. At least some percentage will.
With Vista it may prompt them half a dozen times with "Are you sure?" messages, but the users are no more capable of understanding these messages than they were the original one. So they click the "Yes, I'm sure!" button over and over again.
There is no security when users can be conned into installing software they should not on their computers.
The only way to have a computer that is truely secure is to have it locked in a closet.
If the user can authorize the installation of WeatherBug any other form of security is pointless. The first step is to disable the installation of unauthorized software.
In a company the IT department may be able to decide what is authorized and what is not. For a home computer the only security can come from disallowing anything - it is all unauthorized. Nothing that can be executed can be added to the computer and nothing is ever executed (like scripts). Then you can start worrying about buffer overflows that allow arbitrary code execution and turning them off.
Until you are in control of what is being installed, I'd say the rest is pointless.
They didn't have to put the material out in digital form. Once that was done, they have no rights according to most of the younger people I talk with. If it is humanly possible for it to be pirated, it is obviously their right to do so and nothing is going to stop them.
Laws? Bah, they don't think they will get caught. Now the EU is affirming their "right to pirate" which simply confirms everything they believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Digital distribution is the whole ball of wax. Where piracy is going to end up is destroying all value that recorded music, recorded movies, digital books and anything else "digital".
Why "buy" when it is all free? It is virtually assured that everything that is released will be pirated today, so it is available for free. The pirates have more bandwidth than any commercial interest can ever assemble, so you can download a movie faster than you can buy it. Today the limitation is both consumer bandwidth and popularity, both of which are increasing daily.
There is no way any media company can hope to compete with this so we are seeing the last gasp of a dying beast. The have to fight with everything they have because the alternative is oblivion. And oblivion it surely is as there is no real hope in sight.
I don't know anyone that pays for downloads. I can't imagine anyone being silly enough to do so when it is all available for free. Sure, I'd like to think people have morals and understand that just because it is on the Internet doesn't mean that it should all be free - but I have to live in the real world. And today the real world is the world of the pirate.
Problem is, DVD's are pirated. Nobody gets any money from those and it shouldn't be too much longer until P2P usage exceeds the capability of WalMart to distribute DVDs to the masses. Sure, it will take faster download speeds than most people have today, but it is certainly coming. And there is no stopping it because the materials will be stored offshore.
So why would I go to a theater and pay $10 for a ticket when I can download the movie in an evening for nothing? And probably download it even before it is out in the theater near me.
The only way they get to keep revenue for movies is to not make DVDs and return to theater-only showings. You missed it in the theater? Fine, then it will be on TV in four or five years. Or maybe re-released to the theater. But if it comes out on DVD then nobody has to go to the theater, ever.
It is same thing with musicians losing revenue from recorded music and only getting paid for performances. The theater is the performance venue for movies.
Starting with the the assumption that it is OK to take stuff without paying for it from "evil corporations", it isn't that far from saying it is OK to take your stuff without paying for it as well. If I can get away with it as easily as I can take music and movies.
If you aren't using strong encryption and locked-down systems, it is your own fault anyway. And if you are managing everything like that you are getting probed 100 times a day. Sort of like living in a castle, huh?
Face it, to use the Internet intelligently you have to have a "fortress mentality."
When it works, this sounds like a really good system. Unfortunately right now facial recognition doesn't work all that well.
This is one of those issues where you get to choose whether or not it is good for the police force to be inefficient. If they are, there are lots of people on the street that should not be and some in jail that should not be. If the police were efficient there would be no criminals walking the streets and nobody in jail that didn't belong there. Sounds pretty good for the police to be efficient unless you are a criminal.
Today your average person can feel pretty secure in the knowledge that they can freely commit crimes without much fear of being caught. This could be the beginning of a change in that.
There is of course "Universal Disk Format" also known as UDF. It was designed to be the ultimate in file systems and applicable to all media types.
Unfortunately, it is extremely fragile with errors leading to loss of all files on the media and consumes vast quantities of space due to use of entire sectors for structures that take far less than a sector.
There are currently a large number of implementations of UDF, mostly compatible with each other, for CDs and DVDs. I do not believe it is supported for hard drives on Windows or OSX at the present time. It was used for some manufacturer's DVD-RAM drives but not all. Yet another reason why there was limited compatibility of DVD-RAM discs.
Today, the most common "cybercrime" is child pornography. It consumes the time of vast number of forensic professionals.
One of the most common excuses is "Oh, I don't know how THAT got there." The incredibly stupid have their collection in a folder called "Kiddy Porn". One step above that would be people with it "hidden" somehow. Immediately upon finding something hidden the excuse about not knowing it was there - downloaded by some mysterous popup, for example - goes out the window.
In this way, having hidden information on your hard drive is extremely significant. Because it shows intent.
And the one flaw with this is that there isn't any "evidence" against the person until the person is identified. Woops. There is also a little problem - there is no one-to-one mapping of IP addresses to people. You can tie the IP address to a computer but it is completely unknown who was sitting at the keyboard.
Oh, you can guess. And most of the time you'd be right. But it isn't proof. I suppose in a country where people are put to death for having the wrong skin color in the wrong place that you could probably lose a lawsuit because your computer did something illegal. But the way this is set up today there is no proof. At a minimum I would think you would need a witness that saw you uploading at the exact time the alleged activity took place.
The final note on this would be if someone created a "Trojan uploader" that was installed via email worm. You get it on your computer and it uploads music and video files without your knowledge. Or, at least your direct knowledge. Then your computer is independently performing illegal acts anyone participating. This would pretty much end the possibility of prosecuting anyone for anything involving the Internet.
Emailed a threatening letter to the White House? Must have been MalMail. This is Windows, after all.
Uploading copyrighted music? That SneakUploader is going around again. Have to clean the machine.
Stabbed your wife 37 times with a dull fork? I'm afraid you're gonna have to take the rap for that one. Windows may be bad, but it isn't that bad yet.
Why? Everything you do on the Internet is completely anonymous unless you (or your ISP) rats you out.
If all they have is an IP address it does not show anything about who was at the keyboard. If they get that far, they can examine the computer and find pirated files. This still does not say who was at the keyboard when that occurred. Are you responsible for everything your computer does? Ever heard of spyware and BackOrifice? Of course you can't be held responsible for files on your computer.
If the University doesn't consider the "account holder" to be responsible for all activity on the connection, then it could have been your Auntie Em or Cousin Bo. Or the guy leeching WiFi in the parking lot.
The real question is if the RIAA has ever actually filed a lawsuit and won. So far, all the information I've seen says they have never, ever won a lawsuit only convinced some people to settle without a trial.
If that is correct, then you are most certainly justified in your opinion.
I suspect they have won far more than they have lost and are on-target 99% of the time. For various reasons such wins are never reported. They aren't "newsworthy" in the current sense of the word. If this is the case, then things are a little different than the "popular thinking" would seem to indicate.
So, who (outside of the RIAA) has the facts?
Yahoo shows you ads with the listings. The ads pay for the listings. Would you want ads popping up on your Tivo? No? Well, that's why you are paying.
If the owner of the content believed you wouldn't redistribute their content in ways they do not sanction, they might allow Tivo to record it to such an unencumbered format. Problem is, the content owners know for a fact that while you personally may not redistribute people in general will.
How much would you sell your commercial-free archive for? Wouldn't this tend to diminish (if not eliminate) the value of the boxed DVD set the content owner wants to sell? Oh yeah, since they broadcast it they have no rights to the material after that, right? Why should the content owner help in creating a competitor?
Absolutely, let the government have SSN's. They belong to them.
Banks and credit companies should be using something else. They should also (now) be aware that an SSN is meaningless and everyone has had theirs passed around on hacker sites at least once. So when someone comes in with an SSN and a name but not a certified copy of a birth certificate and five or six other documents that would tend to prove who the person on the other side of the desk is, they wouldnt' just give out a $10,000 unsecured loan.
Right now with an SSN I can go into most merchants and buy at least $5,000 worth of stuff just by filling out a form with an SSN and a few other details. This needs to stop because neither the merchant or the credit company has any idea who they are dealing with.
You could just start using pirated software as well. Level the playing field.
I suspect in a few years the concept of "piracy" will be something that is talked about in retirement homes and warehouses for the dying only. On a global scale, without any effective enforcement, piracy will be the rule.
Today almost nobody under 30 understands there is anything wrong with it - it is just how they get their music, movies and software. It is there, free for the taking, so they take it. They laugh at the "3 steps to the software you need" spam because it implies paying some criminal for what is free to download.
The "Apple strategy" of making software development costly is a failed strategy, as shown by the ratio of applications for the Mac world vs. PC world.
The point to remember about Microsoft is that their products are good enough for the majority of users or at least tolerable. Also, a huge number of problems in Windows are due to environmental considerations. If you install hardware with flakey drivers, you get crashes. How many hardware companies are out there developing their own drivers and not getting them certified? Contrast this with the Mac world where the driver authors are mostly Apple employees.
Windows suffers from a couple of fundamental design decisions that affect everyone. One of these is that it is supposed to be extremely flexible, so flexible that it can really hurt itself. For example, running any sort of script or executable code in the context of reading an email message is just plain wrong - but it is possible to build applications that make use of this capability with Outlook and (I believe) Outlook Express. This should never have happened but ripping this functionality away from the product would cripple some applications.
Also, it has been all about backwards compatability since the beginning of Windows. The incredible amount of damage this has caused has also meant that old applications written for DOS would run on Windows Me. Was it worth it? Absolutely, if you have a business dependent on that backwards compatibility.
Would it be better if application developers were trained and certified by Microsoft before being allowed to turn their applications loose on the world? It might make for a more stable experience for users but it would have utterly stifled the development process. Clearly the direction has been for more badly-written applications instead of fewer stable ones. The business case for doing this is obvious and I think Microsoft took the right approach.
First person that installs WeatherBug (or its Solaris equivalent) in a hospital gets their final check that day. They are gone.
There is no substitute for educating the users.
Problem is that you can't convict anybody of anything when the Internet is involved.
How do you prove, even with a preponderance of the evidence, that person X was at the keyboard instead of person Y. Or it might have been Z out in the parking lot on an open access point. You can't prove it, so no prosecution is possible.
Same goes for the RIAA it would seem.
OK, the general attitude here is "I'll have my music and nobody is gonna stop me!"
The real question is has the RIAA ever won in court? Obviously, the uninformed opinion here is no, but has it happened?
The second point is can anyone be successfully sued in civil court for anything on the Internet? Assuming they do not brag about it on open forums or otherwise admit their actions, it would seem the general opinion here is that since nobody saw you do it, it cannot be proven who did it. Therefore, no responsibility exists. This seems like a very dangerous position to take because it pretty much establishes a legal defense for any sort of action, legal or not, on the Internet. Does this sound like a good way to go? Should use of the Internet convey immunity?
Sounds clearly like a rabid squirrel. This is the sort of behavior that is expected from rabid animals. Each of the people bitten are probably in for a long series of uncomfortable shots.
Simple: EU manufacturers cannot possibly compete with China and other Far East manufacturers on labor costs.
Wait for WTO to veto this as an unfair tariff.
And exactly what is wrong with dying? It was the only option before the drug. It was the only option for thousands of years.
As we haven't ventured off the planet, every single person is consuming part of a finite pool of resources. When the resources are gone, that is it. No more people. We are now consuming resources at a pace never before seen - because the population has never been this high. With this population, the finite pool of resources aren't going to last anywhere near as long as they would if there were fewer people.
The choice is clear: fewer people or more resources. I don't see anyone making gathering of off-planet resources a priority now, so fewer people is currently the only option available.
We have circumvented, evaded or put off every natural method for population control. We aren't going to be seeing any massive plagues or other mass die-offs any longer. So it is up to us to solve this problem. Pollution is a population-driven problem. Resource consumption is a population-driven problem. Some people believe that climate change is a population-driven problem. I'm sure we can find someone that believes volcanoes, hurricanes and tsunamis are population-driven as well.
Isn't it the President of South Africa the guy that believes that HIV and AIDS aren't linked in any way? Doesn't he also believe that you can't get HIV through sex? More on point, isn't South Africa also making laws and government funding decisions based on this sort of stuff?
So why would anyone believe a pharmaceutical company (or anybody else with an education) when they have such find examples of leaders right there?
Problem is the "more secure" modem is pitched to the customer as something that is optional, good for more technical users and not really necessary for the "normal home user". The ISPs are making any more money off the more-expensive modem and they certainly aren't getting more customers that way.
However, if they tell someone all sorts of scary stories they just may lose a customer.
We are still in a developing market where the competitors are fighting for market share and penetration. Why ever in the world would they do something that could scare a customer off?
Users!
When a user clicks on a link and is prompted to "run or save" some executable program what should they do? Of course, if the previous message told them to "just click run" they are going to just click the Run button. At least some percentage will.
With Vista it may prompt them half a dozen times with "Are you sure?" messages, but the users are no more capable of understanding these messages than they were the original one. So they click the "Yes, I'm sure!" button over and over again.
There is no security when users can be conned into installing software they should not on their computers.
The only way to have a computer that is truely secure is to have it locked in a closet.
If the user can authorize the installation of WeatherBug any other form of security is pointless. The first step is to disable the installation of unauthorized software.
In a company the IT department may be able to decide what is authorized and what is not. For a home computer the only security can come from disallowing anything - it is all unauthorized. Nothing that can be executed can be added to the computer and nothing is ever executed (like scripts). Then you can start worrying about buffer overflows that allow arbitrary code execution and turning them off.
Until you are in control of what is being installed, I'd say the rest is pointless.
They didn't have to put the material out in digital form. Once that was done, they have no rights according to most of the younger people I talk with. If it is humanly possible for it to be pirated, it is obviously their right to do so and nothing is going to stop them.
Laws? Bah, they don't think they will get caught. Now the EU is affirming their "right to pirate" which simply confirms everything they believe.
Who do you have to notify if you move? Do you have to ask permission?
People move around in the US, enough that it is almost impossible for the government to know your current address.