Kodu! Free for PC, cheap for Xbox. Build a game and it's environment using programming concepts without typing. Great for teaching "if this then that" logic, and hugely fun, which is great for keeping kids engaged. http://research.microsoft.com/apps/mobile/showpage.aspx?page=/en-us/projects/kodu/ Also take a look on YouTube for a slew of games people have built with it.
Um, what? t-mobile has them right now (http://htc.t-mobile.com/hd7/hd7-windows-mobile-lp?WT.ac=0918HOM04) and Sprint (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2370604,00.asp) and Verizon in early 2011 (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372743,00.asp)
Huh? They most definitely are not a research company. They're an advertising company doing whatever they can to connect eyeballs with advertising. Today, they do this with software and tech services, but tomorrow they'll publish a magazine or produce a television show if they thought it would make them money.
I'm not saying they're anything wrong with this, but you gotta follow the money.
> which means that the only people who Take2 was (legally) selling the game to
Do what now? To the best of my knowledge, there is no law in most (all?) states which gives any force of law to either ESRB or MPAA ratings... and I think this is a good thing. This means that private businesses may choose to self-limit their sales to minors if they believe that they'll more than make it up in public good will generating replacement sales. It means that if certain standards differ from state to state or locale to locale, companies are free to make their own call locally. Even better, as public opinion changes over time, policies can adjust without dealing with the political process.
I'm worried, though, that your comment is representative of the general impression - but it worries me when people are afraid of breaking non-existent laws.
>It would be amazing. Science and culture would flourish like mad. The creation of art would explode, with new forms appearing at a never before seen rate. Businesses would boom with all the new opportunities. We can only hope this becomes our future one day...
An interesting potential side effect - let's say lawsuits force many spammers to adhere to all rules and restrictions. I'd be worried about the next legal action - a law to ban filters which filter out unsolicited commercial email. Suddenly, to filter UCE would "irreparably harm legitimate businesses", and so to filter based on "ADV:" in your subject line would be... no more legal that taking a trip to the rest-room during a commercial break.
With > 700 posts, who knows if anyone will see this...
I *must* recommend China Mieville's "Perdido Street Station" (and the sort-of sequel "The Scar"). His novels have amazingly rich texture, setting and characters are vivid and life-like. An excellent balance of description and plot, I found myself completely immersed as New Crobuzon came alive around me. While it would probably be found in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy section, it's hardly the standard techo-thriller/D&D work you might expect. Perhaps the closest example I can give is Neil Gaiman's "Neverwhere" - another book I heartily recommend. In fact, you should probably read everything Gaiman has written - from "Good Omens" (with Terry Pratchett) to his Sandman series of graphic novels.
Seriously though, just because something that decodes CSS can be a small, perhaps trivial, implementation isn't in and of itself an indication of the strength of the encryption scheme. CSS is key-based encryption, and guess what, keys are small. This is like saying: "Gee, all those dead-bolts on your door are pretty puny, all it takes is this tiny little key to open them all!".
They don't care about open source or Linux, just the performance that they will get from the machines
They're only concerned about performance. The license fee shouldn't be a deciding factor unless the two systems are otherwise quite similar.
the Apache statistics on web presence, etc
...right, fine, but be prepared to completely ignore the bandwagon approach when you try to pitch the idea of running Linux on all the lab machines...
along with an "Oh by the way I'm a Unix guy"
Oh come on. That sure is a great reason to pick a web server, right? Besides, since a really good Unix-flavor admin is a member of the elite crowd, they should be able to pick up IIS in no time!
The posted question peeves me a bit, since it asks: "Where can I get -credible- data to prove that Apache can outperform IIS?" rather than: "Where can I find independant validation of these results and/or data to refute them?". If you're really concerned about finding the best solution to your problem (web serving) you should find facts and then choose a solution, not pick a solution and then find facts to back it up. That's not fair to your employer and it's not the way shops should be run.
It probably didn't take the whole system with it, at most it probably locked up the keyboard and mouse, but you should still have been able to telnet/ssh in and kill the X server.
...right, from your other, networked, home computer? It is not acceptable to have to have both a networking connection and access to another computer w/telnet or ssh handy (ruling out, say, most public library computers, etc) just to reclaim your system. I'm not trying to say this won't recover control of the system (many a time have I done this to recover from a crashed 3dfx Quake session), but it's not a "solution" for the average computer user.
in the meantime DeCSS is illegal under DMCA, and the judge did the right thing in ruling that it is.
Wow... someone who gets it. I had almost given up hope.
The judge made a ruling as to whether or not 2600's acts were illegal under the law. Guess what, they were. The issue here should really be whether or not the DMCA is constitutional, and, odds are we'll see in the appeals process. However, for now, it too is deemed to be constitutional.
The other thing I find somewhat humorous is that it might very well be that since the DMCA was passed more recently than the Home Recording Act, and since Congress was aware of the Fair Use clause when it passed the DMCA, the the DMCA superceeds and overrides the Fair Use clause...
You can copy an encypted DVD disc bit for bit, and play it back on a licensed player. In other words, you don't need DeCSS to pirate DVDs.
You do if you want to recompress the data streams to bring the filesizes down, say, to 650MB. The funny thing is that if download speeds increase 8 fold in the near future, downloading an average DVD will take just as long as downloading a CD does now, and then straight pirating of DVD's will become more commonplace.
... by buying a DVD I have the legal right to view the DVD, period
Says you. You may view the DVD in a manner consistent with the provider's specifications, and this means that if the title is encrypted, that you must view it with a licensed viewer or decrypt the program yourself. Note that the Judge didn't say that using DeCSS was illegal - in fact he seemed to say that it would be legal as long as the use fell under "fair use". What was deemed illegal was the distribution of DeCSS (and, of course, that the use of DeCSS for piracy purposes is illegal is a given, right?)
And even with more laws than you could count, once I've memorized it, no one short of God himself can stop me from 'rereading' it, as it were, as much as I want.
Or someone with a good hand at electroshock therapy.:) "Come closer son, that's it, sit down in that chair. Now about that library book you memorized... *zap* *zap* *zap*"
Many judges will overturn such laws because they're harmful to society, IIRC
I think you're right, I've heard something along these lines too. FWIW, if the laws protecting IP were struck down, then there'd be no such thing as piracy, and the whole issue would become moral, not legal. My point (and I'm not arguing this at you, Cpt Kangarooski (a Polish-Australian Naval Officer?)) is that these things are currently illegal (at least in the US).
The most natural way is that which grants no control at all. The most likely best way is that which lets the author control the first sale, and then gets the hell out of the way
:) Sure, but then this either leads to less creation ("What's the point, I don't get anything out of it except a little sense of pride, and you can't live on pride"), or the creation of "enforcer" gangs, who, for a large cut of the profit, beat up on people who copy your work without their "permission" (or at least threaten to do so). Soon, all IP is funnelled through these "IP Mafiosos", and you'd better not copy things without their permission. They'd come up with gang "symbols" and "callsigns" or "handles", like "RIAA", and... or, wait... I think I'd rather spend some time in jail and/or pay a fine than have my kneecaps broken.:)
Where is it written? Amendment I, United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Right.... but there's (at least) two things to look at beyond these words:
We are not given the freedom of speech by this amendment Huh? What? But it says.... Nope, it says that Congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech. This doesn't say "You have the right to free speech", it says Congress shall not abridge whatever rights and privileges to free speech you may have. We don't by default start with all possible rights, and only don't do something when Congress tells us not to. Common sense also needs to be considered, and if copying someone else's music is steal, we need to realize that this is something we shouldn't be doing, even *if* (if, mind you) it is technically legal. As an aside, this doesn't say that States can't abridge these rights, and IIRC amendment 10 says all rights not given to Congress (and this one is obviously not given to Congress) are given to the states. Could they (if any don't have a variation on Amendment 1 in their constitution) abridge free speech?
Any part of the Constitution has to be reconciled with all other parts of the Constitution So... if there is some other part of the Constitution which would lend rights to the owners of IP, this would mean that our "right" to free speech is not so absolute. This is why we can't yell "Fire" in a crowded room - the rights of others to happiness and safety would be infringed by your exercise of free speech, so a median needs to be found
Finally, why is this an issue of free speech? You're not being prohibited from disseminating your political or moral views, you're not being prevented from distributing *your* music... "Free Speech" doesn't mean "hey, anything I can express in any medium, including exact copies of someone else's work, hateful or false statements, child pornography, etc, is protected under the first Amendment". What about the rights of the creator of the work? The whole "Well, the artist only sees a few cents for each CD sold, so it's ok" argument is stupid: it's *still* depriving them of their income, and, like it or not, the RIAA has the right to their profit under the contracts they have with bands and US law, until proven otherwise.
This is the same RIAA that spreads FUD about ripping mp3s and listening to them on your computer. (You doubt me? Look here. Notice the implication that you might be sued for using your personal computer in connection with music.)
While I can't claim to know everything the RIAA has ever said or done, I haven't encountered this personally. While I thank you for your link (I really do appreciate it when people back up their statements), I don't see this as FUD (unless they are stating outright lies). And, yes, there is more than the implication that you might be sued for using your personal computer in connection with music, they state this pretty definately. So....? A computer can do amazing things, limited only by the time a process takes and the intelligence of a programmer. It is quite conceivable that an individual could make copies of copyrighted materials and break the law doing so, and be sued for this.
From the linked to RIAA document:
the manufacturers of the devices [
not consumers] receive statutory immunity from infringement based on the use of those devices by consumers
It also means, however, that neither manufacturers of the devices [computers], nor the consumers who use them, receive immunity from suit for copyright infringement
The only difference with computers, then, is with regards to the liability of the manufacturers, not the consumers, since they are not covered by the AHRA. Given the legal precdent set by the AHRA, however, as long as the consumer's use of a computer was for private, non-commercial use (which is all the AHRA applied to for the consumer anyway), it is unlikely that the RIAA would prevail.
It's possible, of course, the the RIAA is evil mean and spiteful, I just don't care for it when discussions start off with that assumption as a given, especially when this logic is used to justify piracy ("Gee, I don't like the RIAA, I think I'll break the law!") when the laws themselves aren't necessarily evil mean or spiteful
I still don't think people would go for it.
"Fuck this" would be the average consumer's response to that, I think.
Quite possibly, and more power to the concept of the free market if this concept fails as a result of being an inferior experience for the consumer (price, convenience, etc). If it sucks from a users perspective, it should fail. Note that "makes it harder to break the law" is *not* a good reason for it to fail. Burdensome requirements, too high price/value ratio, privacy concerns, etc *are* good reasons for it to fail.
So now every player is going to need an Internet connection or a phone line? Now we're back to DIVX again.
No... you'd probably be able to go to a RIAA kiosk in any store which sells music and do it there, with the option to do it at home too. Plus, DIVX required you to have a phone connection to watch a video - you would only need to connect to the RIAA (or whoever) to add/transfer a license to a new device - hardly something you need to do as often.
It's codified in law, among other places. (Audio Home Recording Act). For print, the concept is called "first sale". You seem to confuse the desire to make copies of CDs all over the internet, with the desire to listen to your own CD in your own house, on your own choice of equipment, without needing to surrender personal information to a third party, etc.
I don't think that the even the RIAA really has (or at least, it shouldn't have) any problem with the consumer listening to music on multiple devices, etc, but this is different from the idea that I've purchased rights to this song and give it to all my friends and those wonderfull folks on the Internet, etc. One of the major problems in combating piracy is that it's hard, if not impossible, to distinguish between these two scenarios via a technical solution without giving up some privacy.
If you sold an album to An Average Person (tm) and then told him he was only authorized to listen to it a maximum of (3) times, and only when he was completely alone in his bathroom, I don't think he would find this particular intuitive.
Why not? I think that if the consumer were alowed to choose which rights they wished to purchase, and what cost would these would entail, it would be no less intuitive than, say, long distance plans (I'm not throwing this up as an example of something which is easily understood, but rather something which is deemed "understandable enough" for the general public).
In particular, most of these schemes seem to amount to unwritten contracts being forced upon an unknowing public.
It wouldn't have to be unwritten. It could be something along the order of "this song costs $2.00, plus $0.25 for each additional playback device, 5 addition devices for $1, volume pricing available. Rights to an addition playback devices can be purchased at any time after initial sale". I think this would be quite understandable, even if it is different than the way things currently work.
But it's just as easy to make the same argument the other way, isn't it? Let's see...
[snip...] my point is that "rights" are largely a matter of opinion and convention. Rights concerning 'property' that doesn't really physically exist, doubly so.
Exactly, I agree. I just find it odd that so many people seem to assume that one way or the other is a given and "The Way Things Should Be, Why Is Everybody So Blind?". If you take this premise as a given, then a lot of arguments can be built upon it, most of which fall apart if we don't take the premise as a given. I'd love to see a moderated debate forum on Slashdot, where we could send suggestions to the debating parties, but not necessarily participate directly.
It would require an optimal computer [*] about 250 megawatts of power [**] and a full year of time to break a 128-bit cipher
I like the idea of a mathematical approach, but I don't see anything in the equation which deals with time.... if one such computer could do this in a year, couldn't two do so in half the time (double the rate of power consumption for half the time), and four in one quarter the time? Given this information, we're only limited by how quickly we can generate power, and if we can do so at 250Mw/h (which can, yes? (though not cheaply... yet) we could break one of these an hour... (ok, yes, if we could disspate a fair amount of heat...:)
Well, I hope that these things called "computers" will still exist by then...
I imagine they will, unless the Net-Appliances do away with them (you laugh now...). But, if you can only pirate music when stuck at computer or when lugging your laptop around, I think the RIAA would be happier with this than if you could dump pirated music into your car, walkman, etc. Consider than this could actually prevent pirating on the walkman too, if everything moves to solid state and away from tape/CD....
This means the device will by default NOT play music. I don't think people will be rushing out to buy them.
I don't think this logic works... since most portable CD players can't read CD-RW and many can't read CD-R, you could say that, by default, most current players will, by default, NOT play music unless it's released by the recording industry's format (i.e. the pressed CD). I don't see this as much different, except that the issue of playability is moving out of the realm of the physical and into the logical. Most people don't complain that their tape deck doesn't play a CD (physical media mismatch), why would they complain when their memory stick device can't play bootleg files (logical media mismatch) except that they have to spend money now....
Exactly. But, I don't need the RIAA's key to create a valid SDMI file pointing to someone else. I can just steal your credit card and use that to open a SDMI account
...unless the private key is stored in the player itself, and the process requires a secure (again, crypto) connection between the device and the RIAA server? And, to make it "fair", you might be able to purchase the music for up to three devices at one time (plugging them in one at a time). I'm not saying this is ideal, but isn't it better than allowing piracy?;)
Remember, that means that the watermark recognition would be done in the player. Which, in turn, means, that there will be millions of implementions of the watermarking to reverse engineer. In the long run, this approach much be doomed to failure.
This seems (to me) to be the only way it'd work. If it was done anywhere upstream, a software "solution" would quickly become available. The only other option I can think of is that the logic would be built in to all speakers or something.... yuckyuckyuck. But.... what does it mean to reverse engineer the watermarking? I agree that if the entire security model relies on security through obscurity, then, yes, it'd fall pretty quickly. However, if it's based on public/private cryptography... and if a valid watermark requires that it be created with the RIAA's private key (all players contain the corresponding public key) and that it is watermarked for a target device/user (using your walkman's public key), it'd require the private key be available in the player to work. Understanding the math won't help at all, unless there is indeed a quick way to factor mod math, in which case we're in trouble for a lot of other reasons. I can't wait to see the next distributed.net project "Find the RIAA's private key".:)
Piracy has always been "clumsy enough" that MOST people don't pirate. Yet RIAA does not seem to be happy
I see this along the lines of "well, the piracy is still small, and not yet dangerous. However, if we don't attack it now, it'll be a larger target with more momentum". I think it's the whole "ounce of prevention" thing. You know, detect the tumor when it's small, that kind of thing. Besides, if RIAA were complacent, their customers/members, whose stuff is being pirated, would scream bloody murder (well, most would). Those that wouldn't can release their music to the world for free on their own anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Kodu! Free for PC, cheap for Xbox. Build a game and it's environment using programming concepts without typing. Great for teaching "if this then that" logic, and hugely fun, which is great for keeping kids engaged.
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/mobile/showpage.aspx?page=/en-us/projects/kodu/
Also take a look on YouTube for a slew of games people have built with it.
Um, what? t-mobile has them right now (http://htc.t-mobile.com/hd7/hd7-windows-mobile-lp?WT.ac=0918HOM04) and Sprint (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2370604,00.asp) and Verizon in early 2011 (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372743,00.asp)
Huh? They most definitely are not a research company. They're an advertising company doing whatever they can to connect eyeballs with advertising. Today, they do this with software and tech services, but tomorrow they'll publish a magazine or produce a television show if they thought it would make them money.
I'm not saying they're anything wrong with this, but you gotta follow the money.
> which means that the only people who Take2 was (legally) selling the game to
Do what now? To the best of my knowledge, there is no law in most (all?) states which gives any force of law to either ESRB or MPAA ratings... and I think this is a good thing. This means that private businesses may choose to self-limit their sales to minors if they believe that they'll more than make it up in public good will generating replacement sales. It means that if certain standards differ from state to state or locale to locale, companies are free to make their own call locally. Even better, as public opinion changes over time, policies can adjust without dealing with the political process.
I'm worried, though, that your comment is representative of the general impression - but it worries me when people are afraid of breaking non-existent laws.
Well... it's a bit of a spoiler... but the Doctor is actually the twelveth Cylon.
>Say what you will about William Shatner, but ... His cheesy, over-the-top style will be impossible to duplicate.
But.... so... *easy*... to.... *imitate*!
>It would be amazing. Science and culture would flourish like mad. The creation of art would explode, with new forms appearing at a never before seen rate. Businesses would boom with all the new opportunities. We can only hope this becomes our future one day...
... and we all know how well *that* turned out: http://www.2kgames.com/bioshock/
A death what now? :)
An interesting potential side effect - let's say lawsuits force many spammers to adhere to all rules and restrictions. I'd be worried about the next legal action - a law to ban filters which filter out unsolicited commercial email. Suddenly, to filter UCE would "irreparably harm legitimate businesses", and so to filter based on "ADV:" in your subject line would be... no more legal that taking a trip to the rest-room during a commercial break.
With > 700 posts, who knows if anyone will see this...
I *must* recommend China Mieville's "Perdido Street Station" (and the sort-of sequel "The Scar"). His novels have amazingly rich texture, setting and characters are vivid and life-like. An excellent balance of description and plot, I found myself completely immersed as New Crobuzon came alive around me. While it would probably be found in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy section, it's hardly the standard techo-thriller/D&D work you might expect. Perhaps the closest example I can give is Neil Gaiman's "Neverwhere" - another book I heartily recommend. In fact, you should probably read everything Gaiman has written - from "Good Omens" (with Terry Pratchett) to his Sandman series of graphic novels.
-User
So.... size matters?
Seriously though, just because something that decodes CSS can be a small, perhaps trivial, implementation isn't in and of itself an indication of the strength of the encryption scheme. CSS is key-based encryption, and guess what, keys are small. This is like saying: "Gee, all those dead-bolts on your door are pretty puny, all it takes is this tiny little key to open them all!".
-User
The posted question peeves me a bit, since it asks: "Where can I get -credible- data to prove that Apache can outperform IIS?" rather than: "Where can I find independant validation of these results and/or data to refute them?". If you're really concerned about finding the best solution to your problem (web serving) you should find facts and then choose a solution, not pick a solution and then find facts to back it up. That's not fair to your employer and it's not the way shops should be run.
-User
-User
The judge made a ruling as to whether or not 2600's acts were illegal under the law. Guess what, they were. The issue here should really be whether or not the DMCA is constitutional, and, odds are we'll see in the appeals process. However, for now, it too is deemed to be constitutional.
The other thing I find somewhat humorous is that it might very well be that since the DMCA was passed more recently than the Home Recording Act, and since Congress was aware of the Fair Use clause when it passed the DMCA, the the DMCA superceeds and overrides the Fair Use clause...
-User
-User
-User
"Come closer son, that's it, sit down in that chair. Now about that library book you memorized... *zap* *zap* *zap*"
I think you're right, I've heard something along these lines too. FWIW, if the laws protecting IP were struck down, then there'd be no such thing as piracy, and the whole issue would become moral, not legal. My point (and I'm not arguing this at you, Cpt Kangarooski (a Polish-Australian Naval Officer?)) is that these things are currently illegal (at least in the US).
I think I'd rather spend some time in jail and/or pay a fine than have my kneecaps broken.
-User
- We are not given the freedom of speech by this amendment
- Any part of the Constitution has to be reconciled with all other parts of the Constitution
Finally, why is this an issue of free speech? You're not being prohibited from disseminating your political or moral views, you're not being prevented from distributing *your* music... "Free Speech" doesn't mean "hey, anything I can express in any medium, including exact copies of someone else's work, hateful or false statements, child pornography, etc, is protected under the first Amendment". What about the rights of the creator of the work? The whole "Well, the artist only sees a few cents for each CD sold, so it's ok" argument is stupid: it's *still* depriving them of their income, and, like it or not, the RIAA has the right to their profit under the contracts they have with bands and US law, until proven otherwise.Huh? What? But it says.... Nope, it says that Congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech. This doesn't say "You have the right to free speech", it says Congress shall not abridge whatever rights and privileges to free speech you may have. We don't by default start with all possible rights, and only don't do something when Congress tells us not to. Common sense also needs to be considered, and if copying someone else's music is steal, we need to realize that this is something we shouldn't be doing, even *if* (if, mind you) it is technically legal. As an aside, this doesn't say that States can't abridge these rights, and IIRC amendment 10 says all rights not given to Congress (and this one is obviously not given to Congress) are given to the states. Could they (if any don't have a variation on Amendment 1 in their constitution) abridge free speech?
So... if there is some other part of the Constitution which would lend rights to the owners of IP, this would mean that our "right" to free speech is not so absolute. This is why we can't yell "Fire" in a crowded room - the rights of others to happiness and safety would be infringed by your exercise of free speech, so a median needs to be found
-User
While I can't claim to know everything the RIAA has ever said or done, I haven't encountered this personally. While I thank you for your link (I really do appreciate it when people back up their statements), I don't see this as FUD (unless they are stating outright lies). And, yes, there is more than the implication that you might be sued for using your personal computer in connection with music, they state this pretty definately. So....? A computer can do amazing things, limited only by the time a process takes and the intelligence of a programmer. It is quite conceivable that an individual could make copies of copyrighted materials and break the law doing so, and be sued for this.
From the linked to RIAA document: The only difference with computers, then, is with regards to the liability of the manufacturers, not the consumers, since they are not covered by the AHRA. Given the legal precdent set by the AHRA, however, as long as the consumer's use of a computer was for private, non-commercial use (which is all the AHRA applied to for the consumer anyway), it is unlikely that the RIAA would prevail.
It's possible, of course, the the RIAA is evil mean and spiteful, I just don't care for it when discussions start off with that assumption as a given, especially when this logic is used to justify piracy ("Gee, I don't like the RIAA, I think I'll break the law!") when the laws themselves aren't necessarily evil mean or spiteful
-User
No... you'd probably be able to go to a RIAA kiosk in any store which sells music and do it there, with the option to do it at home too. Plus, DIVX required you to have a phone connection to watch a video - you would only need to connect to the RIAA (or whoever) to add/transfer a license to a new device - hardly something you need to do as often.
-User
Why not? I think that if the consumer were alowed to choose which rights they wished to purchase, and what cost would these would entail, it would be no less intuitive than, say, long distance plans (I'm not throwing this up as an example of something which is easily understood, but rather something which is deemed "understandable enough" for the general public).
It wouldn't have to be unwritten. It could be something along the order of "this song costs $2.00, plus $0.25 for each additional playback device, 5 addition devices for $1, volume pricing available. Rights to an addition playback devices can be purchased at any time after initial sale". I think this would be quite understandable, even if it is different than the way things currently work.
-User
-User
-User
I don't think this logic works... since most portable CD players can't read CD-RW and many can't read CD-R, you could say that, by default, most current players will, by default, NOT play music unless it's released by the recording industry's format (i.e. the pressed CD). I don't see this as much different, except that the issue of playability is moving out of the realm of the physical and into the logical. Most people don't complain that their tape deck doesn't play a CD (physical media mismatch), why would they complain when their memory stick device can't play bootleg files (logical media mismatch) except that they have to spend money now....
-User
I see this along the lines of "well, the piracy is still small, and not yet dangerous. However, if we don't attack it now, it'll be a larger target with more momentum". I think it's the whole "ounce of prevention" thing. You know, detect the tumor when it's small, that kind of thing. Besides, if RIAA were complacent, their customers/members, whose stuff is being pirated, would scream bloody murder (well, most would). Those that wouldn't can release their music to the world for free on their own anyway.
-User