It goes back to English common law that the jury cannot be punished for a verdict. The jury is free to decide according to their conscience not because of a law saying they can, but by the lack of penalties. I'm too tired to find a reference now.
When a few people have tried that, they tend to end up in Federal prison for a long time, and they don't exactly get crowds of like-minded supporters pulling open the prison doors.
My hint: you don't just roll through those in order, you need to complete each step. If you can't, in pursuing your cause, reliably obtain enough sympathetic jury members to acquit you then you don't have enough support in the general population to win a revolution.
I guess you really nail it when you say "When a few people have tried that...". A few isn't enough, if you only have a few, that's still soapbox time. It isn't a lack of courage, there's nothing unpatriotic about wanting to avoid civil war:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed.
yes, because regular electronics can't be sealed...
My current phone has a slide screen, difficult for me to seal. Good water resistant phones I've seen don't have the feature set I want. I don't want to have to modify my phone hardware to be suitable for my business, I want to buy it as suitable.
Human being seem to always put their own short-term self-interest ahead of group self-interest, even when group self-interest is in the individual's longer term self-interest. There is no good reason to broadcast the Rohrschach test. Anybody who wants to do research can access it without any problem. Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.
In most countries you can have your civil rights removed on the basis of psychological testing and diagnoses. It can affect the outcome of court cases, education and employment, gun rights, drivers licensing, even up to forcible detention and medication. Most of those do not even require a conviction against you. Psychologists and psychiatrists have no right to secret procedures. They have been handed too much power for that to be a viable option.
If they wish to have secret procedures, then it ought to be the law of the land that no diagnoses has any legal effect except it is confirmed by jury.
Cheaper + worldwide + distribution of the media itself is cheaper.
The price of most on the shelf goods is largely distribution costs due to continual improvements in manufacturing. The internet has wiped out the distribution cost for the media industry. They'll cope ok with less effective advertising, IMO.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, people have been frightened that improving technology will put them out of work. If it were true we would have about 95% unemployment now. Sure, there aren't many buggy whip makers, but I think they're all busy making ipod accessories or something.
And the same huge number of users when asked "what OS do you want on your new PC, Windows or Google Chrome?", will say "Windows" because they don't have a clue what an OS is and "Windows" sounds vaguely familiar.
You don't think Google will sound familiar to them? The combination of branding, being pre-installed on the hardware and being no cost/copy is a pretty big competitive combination.
The previous "cost" was having to watch/listen to advertisements. Without that to subsidize the broadcasting, you would have to, indeed, pay for it.
Doh! Why didn't I think of that! Hey, let's try and come up with a way that can be done on the internet! Advertising on the internet! See you, I'm off to the patent office!
"The plant uses eddy current systems and magnets to separate components including gold, silver and copper once primary compacting machines have reduced computers to about the size of a thumb."
If this process is going to be mainstream they'll have to get some kind of cost benefit attached, otherwise the only way there is going to be a switch is through legislation.
How about (from the summary):
No more ruining cell phones by getting them wet!
That's worth big dollars, particularly to people such as myself who do most of our work outdoors. I'd love to have feature parity on a truly waterproof smartphone, and am quite willing to pay.
If there's one thing I've learned, don't try to argue with religious nutjobs.
Most people will deny reality to avoid admitting being wrong, religious or not. The [religious book] thing does add a different dimension though. You can probably find numerous examples if you read any given story on slashdot.
So far, 50% interesting, 50% flamebait. Not a bad balance, perhaps.
Nevertheless, there are intelligent and stupid in both the liberal and conservative camps, and the stupid are hard to tolerate either way. I assume the flamebait mod was from a stupid liberal, because intelligent liberals tend to reply rather than mod down. Since I was responding to a post that directly implied that conservatives are unintelligent and liberals are intelligent, I don't see how my post could be flamebait instead of the parent.
As I wrote recently in another post, liberal vs conservative is IMO primarily an issue of values, not intelligence. Further to that, self-employment tends more to conservatism, employment to the left-wing. Possibly due to employees living much of their lives under the orders of others they are more comfortable with government compulsion also. Since school teachers and university lecturers are generally employees, it would seem likely that they will, on balance, favour the left. Obviously that would also influence their students.
The left are more likely to value job security than independence, thus will seek employment. Intelligent people seeking employment will almost certainly seek tertiary qualification. Intelligent people seeking the independence of self-employment may or may not seek tertiary qualification depending on their chosen field of endeavour.
Therefore there are at least four factors that will tend to produce left-wing political leanings among the educated that are unrelated to intelligence.
1 - the deliberate efforts of the left to achieve that, as stated by Marx and Engels.
2 - the incidental effects of employment in education generally being more palatable to the left, thus influencing students.
3 - the nature of employment and the values of the people who seek it, coupled with the link between formal education and employment.
4 - the tendency of people to benefit themselves coupled with the nature of modern American liberalism to deliver political power to the formally educated.
None of the points I've raised are absolutes. If you're tempted to mod me down, why not discuss instead? If you can only respond with moderation and not reason, it doesn't say much for your position in terms of intellect.
.. but I'd be willing to wager the 'poor people' referred to by the OP have far more pressing questions that a device such as this one is basically useless for, like "What the hell am I going to eat today?".
How about, how am I going to eat in 3 months, next year. Some of the poorest people are subsistence farmers, they "budget" by the year, not the day, planting crops in the growing season, harvesting in season, allocating a portion of the harvest for personal consumption, a portion for re-planting, what's left is available for sale. Such people would tend to be considerably more forward thinking than many western wage earners who only think as far as next weeks paycheque.
"The users ask a wide range of questions, including cricket scores, paddy farming advice, codes to download songs on their mobiles, homework questions, University exam results, train schedules, commodity prices, and where to get a personal loan."
Can you spot any searches there that would help them provide food for themselves or produce saleable product, increase their education to be more productive, find transport to higher priced markets to sell their goods, find where higher priced markets are for their commodity produce or obtain finance to fund their productive endeavours?
it is interesting to see what they search for - how our species has diverged through the random inequalities of resource provision
or if the inequalities of resource provision are partially caused by the things people search for. Come to think of it, if it were possible it would be interesting to get an search pattern in relation to income within western countries. I would presume search terms similar to "course enrolment" would represent a higher income bracket than search terms like "Paris Hilton", but it would be interesting to see a comprehensive study.
Possibly, if someone was to adopt the search patterns of the wealthier, and follow up on the information with appropriate action, they could give themselves an advantage in that resource allocation.
Theoretically, society sets up laws for the benefit of the honest, not the dishonest. As a result, laws that you cannot sell rat poison as breakfast cereal are not commonly seen as a restriction on trade. Similarly, most people do not see laws against fraud, slander etc as a restriction on free speech.
In a theatre, you can shout "Fire" quite legally, if there is a fire or if you are an actor and it's in your script. Prohibitions against endangering people by deliberately deceiving them are not a restriction on free speech worthy enough to note.
You or I can oppose an unjust law on the basis of its injustice, without resorting to calling its proponents "Big Brother".
Fair enough, and I read your other post too (glad someone dealt with the boiling frog thing), yet I see in my country a things (like taxation rate) that would have provoked much greater resistance in times past.
It's somewhat like saying that during the 20s and 30s when the Klan was at the height of its power that it's OK to repeat Klan talking points, just don't be the one that's actually throwing the bombs.
and yet the klan is no longer at the height of it's power, despite the US having no hate speech laws. How did that happen? Let's do more of that, rather than abridge freedom of speech.
The first amendment has never been absolute, there's always been prohibitions on things such as threats, libel and slander allowing for an extra penalty for the extra damage that hate speech does when it crosses the line is perfectly reasonable.
We had a case here in Australia of two christian guys been done over in court (eventually overturned on appeal) over inciting religious hatred against Muslims. Most people would probably find these guys to be over the top. However, during the case they were apparently asked to stop reading from the Koran because it was vilifying to muslims. (Apparently, because I can't find the source reference, only mention of it on blogs, jihadwatch etc, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001050.php)
The trouble with busting out 1984 references and parodies every time this happens is it cheapens them to the point of irrelevance. If every infringement upon liberty, no matter how significant, is called tyranny, than what shall real tyranny be called?
"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation" James Madison
This is how tyranny happens, one step at a time. It IS real, and would be very foolish to wait until the government breaks out the tanks to quell civil unrest before doing something about it.
Orwell would probably be troubled by the direction we're heading in. He'd also probably be appalled at how silly we've made his (legitimate) concerns look to the world.
We've only made his concerns look silly to people who won't pay attention and don't value their liberty enough to even give it proper consideration, let alone do anything about it. Even though there are many of them, their opinion isn't important.
That is, how they rationalize the very evident inconsistencies between their programmed view of the Universe, and what actually is.
Easily.
II Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight
In Christianity at least, faith is supposed to be different than what you see. For context, the next verse:
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
How do you suppose people can believe that their dead friend/relative is still alive and in heaven when they themselves are at the burial? The existence of a more important, more enduring reality than what is observed is a central concept, not an aberration adopted to defend the worldview.
Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be?
Not at all, although that doesn't necessarily mean they are thinking better.
The
Communists have not invented the intervention of society in
education; they do but seek to alter the character of that
intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the
ruling class. The Communist Manifesto
by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Since the communists publicly declared their intention use education to transform society, it ought not surprise us that those longest exposed to the influence of formal education have been more thoroughly persuaded to follow left-wing politics. In addition, the rule of an intellectual elite is obviously going to be most palatable to those who will exercise that power.
So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?
The RIAA has thousands of cases going on, from threatening letters and settlement offers to actual court actions. The information in this case would be likely to be relevant to large amounts of those cases. We have already seen them make contradictory claims in different cases. It would serve justice and streamline the legal process for their information to be public.
The info from the hard drives of individual file sharers, however, would only usually be relevant to the case at hand. It would also be egregious privacy violation for that info to be make public and if court enforced, could amount to a 4th amendment violation.
Forgive my ignorance, but how does this help the defense to have this info? It is my understanding that statutory damages are for when actual damages are hard to prove. The damages are pretty hard to prove so how does this help?
The difference between "it is hard to prove how much the damage was" and "it is hard to prove any damage" is probably significant. If it turns out to be "it seems likely, based on reported revenues, that there has been no damage at all" it could seriously affect damages awarded.
That's still ignoring the point though. They sent out media over television and radio at no cost to the viewing/listening public for decades, even after recording devices were ubiquitous. They are the ones that have conditioned people to use media for free, which is the point I was responding to "Folks have been conditioned to believe they are entitled to get whatever they want for free. Somehow to them, the only thing worth purchasing are physical goods."
Saying I have to pay their asking rate is missing part of the situation though. We have widespread copying and distribution technology. Expecting people not to use it is like expecting people to not record songs from the radio, or record their favourite TV program or a movie.
As for me, I don't listen to much music and movies are available to hire at $1 each if I get them on a Tues and don't take up my limited bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
It goes back to English common law that the jury cannot be punished for a verdict. The jury is free to decide according to their conscience not because of a law saying they can, but by the lack of penalties. I'm too tired to find a reference now.
When a few people have tried that, they tend to end up in Federal prison for a long time, and they don't exactly get crowds of like-minded supporters pulling open the prison doors.
My hint: you don't just roll through those in order, you need to complete each step. If you can't, in pursuing your cause, reliably obtain enough sympathetic jury members to acquit you then you don't have enough support in the general population to win a revolution.
I guess you really nail it when you say "When a few people have tried that...". A few isn't enough, if you only have a few, that's still soapbox time. It isn't a lack of courage, there's nothing unpatriotic about wanting to avoid civil war:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
yes, because regular electronics can't be sealed...
My current phone has a slide screen, difficult for me to seal. Good water resistant phones I've seen don't have the feature set I want. I don't want to have to modify my phone hardware to be suitable for my business, I want to buy it as suitable.
Human being seem to always put their own short-term self-interest ahead of group self-interest, even when group self-interest is in the individual's longer term self-interest. There is no good reason to broadcast the Rohrschach test. Anybody who wants to do research can access it without any problem. Nobody else has any legitimate reason to access it unless they're being examined.
In most countries you can have your civil rights removed on the basis of psychological testing and diagnoses. It can affect the outcome of court cases, education and employment, gun rights, drivers licensing, even up to forcible detention and medication. Most of those do not even require a conviction against you. Psychologists and psychiatrists have no right to secret procedures. They have been handed too much power for that to be a viable option.
If they wish to have secret procedures, then it ought to be the law of the land that no diagnoses has any legal effect except it is confirmed by jury.
Cheaper + worldwide + distribution of the media itself is cheaper.
The price of most on the shelf goods is largely distribution costs due to continual improvements in manufacturing. The internet has wiped out the distribution cost for the media industry. They'll cope ok with less effective advertising, IMO.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, people have been frightened that improving technology will put them out of work. If it were true we would have about 95% unemployment now. Sure, there aren't many buggy whip makers, but I think they're all busy making ipod accessories or something.
And the same huge number of users when asked "what OS do you want on your new PC, Windows or Google Chrome?", will say "Windows" because they don't have a clue what an OS is and "Windows" sounds vaguely familiar.
You don't think Google will sound familiar to them? The combination of branding, being pre-installed on the hardware and being no cost/copy is a pretty big competitive combination.
NASA has the tapes formerly known as lost.
The previous "cost" was having to watch/listen to advertisements. Without that to subsidize the broadcasting, you would have to, indeed, pay for it.
Doh! Why didn't I think of that! Hey, let's try and come up with a way that can be done on the internet! Advertising on the internet! See you, I'm off to the patent office!
There's a link from that, too, but I don't see any specifics on this mechanical disassembly process.
I presume you mean this link:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/267964/aussie_computer_recycling_plant_saves_20_000_tonnes_e-waste
"The Sims recycling plant, opened Wednesday in Sydney, will reduce monitors and circuit boards into basic components such aluminium, copper, silver and gold to be shipped to overseas sites for further processing."
"The plant uses eddy current systems and magnets to separate components including gold, silver and copper once primary compacting machines have reduced computers to about the size of a thumb."
How specific do you expect from a media article?
If this process is going to be mainstream they'll have to get some kind of cost benefit attached, otherwise the only way there is going to be a switch is through legislation.
How about (from the summary):
No more ruining cell phones by getting them wet!
That's worth big dollars, particularly to people such as myself who do most of our work outdoors. I'd love to have feature parity on a truly waterproof smartphone, and am quite willing to pay.
If there's one thing I've learned, don't try to argue with religious nutjobs.
Most people will deny reality to avoid admitting being wrong, religious or not. The [religious book] thing does add a different dimension though. You can probably find numerous examples if you read any given story on slashdot.
So far, 50% interesting, 50% flamebait. Not a bad balance, perhaps.
Nevertheless, there are intelligent and stupid in both the liberal and conservative camps, and the stupid are hard to tolerate either way. I assume the flamebait mod was from a stupid liberal, because intelligent liberals tend to reply rather than mod down. Since I was responding to a post that directly implied that conservatives are unintelligent and liberals are intelligent, I don't see how my post could be flamebait instead of the parent.
As I wrote recently in another post, liberal vs conservative is IMO primarily an issue of values, not intelligence. Further to that, self-employment tends more to conservatism, employment to the left-wing. Possibly due to employees living much of their lives under the orders of others they are more comfortable with government compulsion also. Since school teachers and university lecturers are generally employees, it would seem likely that they will, on balance, favour the left. Obviously that would also influence their students.
The left are more likely to value job security than independence, thus will seek employment. Intelligent people seeking employment will almost certainly seek tertiary qualification. Intelligent people seeking the independence of self-employment may or may not seek tertiary qualification depending on their chosen field of endeavour.
Therefore there are at least four factors that will tend to produce left-wing political leanings among the educated that are unrelated to intelligence.
1 - the deliberate efforts of the left to achieve that, as stated by Marx and Engels.
2 - the incidental effects of employment in education generally being more palatable to the left, thus influencing students.
3 - the nature of employment and the values of the people who seek it, coupled with the link between formal education and employment.
4 - the tendency of people to benefit themselves coupled with the nature of modern American liberalism to deliver political power to the formally educated.
None of the points I've raised are absolutes. If you're tempted to mod me down, why not discuss instead? If you can only respond with moderation and not reason, it doesn't say much for your position in terms of intellect.
.. but I'd be willing to wager the 'poor people' referred to by the OP have far more pressing questions that a device such as this one is basically useless for, like "What the hell am I going to eat today?".
How about, how am I going to eat in 3 months, next year. Some of the poorest people are subsistence farmers, they "budget" by the year, not the day, planting crops in the growing season, harvesting in season, allocating a portion of the harvest for personal consumption, a portion for re-planting, what's left is available for sale. Such people would tend to be considerably more forward thinking than many western wage earners who only think as far as next weeks paycheque.
"The users ask a wide range of questions, including cricket scores, paddy farming advice, codes to download songs on their mobiles, homework questions, University exam results, train schedules, commodity prices, and where to get a personal loan."
Can you spot any searches there that would help them provide food for themselves or produce saleable product, increase their education to be more productive, find transport to higher priced markets to sell their goods, find where higher priced markets are for their commodity produce or obtain finance to fund their productive endeavours?
it is interesting to see what they search for - how our species has diverged through the random inequalities of resource provision
or if the inequalities of resource provision are partially caused by the things people search for. Come to think of it, if it were possible it would be interesting to get an search pattern in relation to income within western countries. I would presume search terms similar to "course enrolment" would represent a higher income bracket than search terms like "Paris Hilton", but it would be interesting to see a comprehensive study.
Possibly, if someone was to adopt the search patterns of the wealthier, and follow up on the information with appropriate action, they could give themselves an advantage in that resource allocation.
Hate speech isn't an irrevocable right, because it compromises the target's right to safety.
Checks and balances, friend, checks and balances. Let the haters speak. Let the targets bear arms.
Theoretically, society sets up laws for the benefit of the honest, not the dishonest. As a result, laws that you cannot sell rat poison as breakfast cereal are not commonly seen as a restriction on trade. Similarly, most people do not see laws against fraud, slander etc as a restriction on free speech.
In a theatre, you can shout "Fire" quite legally, if there is a fire or if you are an actor and it's in your script. Prohibitions against endangering people by deliberately deceiving them are not a restriction on free speech worthy enough to note.
You or I can oppose an unjust law on the basis of its injustice, without resorting to calling its proponents "Big Brother".
Fair enough, and I read your other post too (glad someone dealt with the boiling frog thing), yet I see in my country a things (like taxation rate) that would have provoked much greater resistance in times past.
It's somewhat like saying that during the 20s and 30s when the Klan was at the height of its power that it's OK to repeat Klan talking points, just don't be the one that's actually throwing the bombs.
and yet the klan is no longer at the height of it's power, despite the US having no hate speech laws. How did that happen? Let's do more of that, rather than abridge freedom of speech.
The first amendment has never been absolute, there's always been prohibitions on things such as threats, libel and slander allowing for an extra penalty for the extra damage that hate speech does when it crosses the line is perfectly reasonable.
We had a case here in Australia of two christian guys been done over in court (eventually overturned on appeal) over inciting religious hatred against Muslims. Most people would probably find these guys to be over the top. However, during the case they were apparently asked to stop reading from the Koran because it was vilifying to muslims. (Apparently, because I can't find the source reference, only mention of it on blogs, jihadwatch etc, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001050.php)
Case can be found here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2003/1753.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2004/2510.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2005/1159.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2006/284.html
The trouble with busting out 1984 references and parodies every time this happens is it cheapens them to the point of irrelevance. If every infringement upon liberty, no matter how significant, is called tyranny, than what shall real tyranny be called?
"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation" James Madison
This is how tyranny happens, one step at a time. It IS real, and would be very foolish to wait until the government breaks out the tanks to quell civil unrest before doing something about it.
Orwell would probably be troubled by the direction we're heading in. He'd also probably be appalled at how silly we've made his (legitimate) concerns look to the world.
We've only made his concerns look silly to people who won't pay attention and don't value their liberty enough to even give it proper consideration, let alone do anything about it. Even though there are many of them, their opinion isn't important.
That is, how they rationalize the very evident inconsistencies between their programmed view of the Universe, and what actually is.
Easily.
II Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight
In Christianity at least, faith is supposed to be different than what you see. For context, the next verse:
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
How do you suppose people can believe that their dead friend/relative is still alive and in heaven when they themselves are at the burial? The existence of a more important, more enduring reality than what is observed is a central concept, not an aberration adopted to defend the worldview.
Should we still be surprised that the more educated someone is, the more liberal (generally speaking) their political views tend to be?
Not at all, although that doesn't necessarily mean they are thinking better.
The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Since the communists publicly declared their intention use education to transform society, it ought not surprise us that those longest exposed to the influence of formal education have been more thoroughly persuaded to follow left-wing politics. In addition, the rule of an intellectual elite is obviously going to be most palatable to those who will exercise that power.
Can you stand up to the gov' in any western country either?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bernstein
Bernstein brought the court case Bernstein v. United States. The ruling in the case declared software as protected speech under the First Amendment, and national restrictions on encryption software were overturned.
http://www.waemploymentlawblog.com/blog/2008/09/transsexual-wins-sex-discrimination-lawsuit-against-federal-government.html
Transsexual Wins Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Federal Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#Aftermath
The surviving members of the Weaver family filed a wrongful death suit and Randy Weaver received a $100,000 settlement while his daughters received $1 million each. Kevin Harris received a $380,000 settlement. (With firearms they lost, in court they won)
Just a few samples found in a couple of minutes.
So why is it shenaningans when the copyright holder wants to protect their information but legitimate when a file sharer wants to protect his or her information?
The RIAA has thousands of cases going on, from threatening letters and settlement offers to actual court actions. The information in this case would be likely to be relevant to large amounts of those cases. We have already seen them make contradictory claims in different cases. It would serve justice and streamline the legal process for their information to be public.
The info from the hard drives of individual file sharers, however, would only usually be relevant to the case at hand. It would also be egregious privacy violation for that info to be make public and if court enforced, could amount to a 4th amendment violation.
Forgive my ignorance, but how does this help the defense to have this info? It is my understanding that statutory damages are for when actual damages are hard to prove. The damages are pretty hard to prove so how does this help?
The difference between "it is hard to prove how much the damage was" and "it is hard to prove any damage" is probably significant. If it turns out to be "it seems likely, based on reported revenues, that there has been no damage at all" it could seriously affect damages awarded.
That's still ignoring the point though. They sent out media over television and radio at no cost to the viewing/listening public for decades, even after recording devices were ubiquitous. They are the ones that have conditioned people to use media for free, which is the point I was responding to "Folks have been conditioned to believe they are entitled to get whatever they want for free. Somehow to them, the only thing worth purchasing are physical goods."
Saying I have to pay their asking rate is missing part of the situation though. We have widespread copying and distribution technology. Expecting people not to use it is like expecting people to not record songs from the radio, or record their favourite TV program or a movie.
As for me, I don't listen to much music and movies are available to hire at $1 each if I get them on a Tues and don't take up my limited bandwidth.