Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music The Courts

RIAA Sues Usenet.com 495

Posted by kdawson
from the not-the-same-as-suing-usenet dept.
Several readers pointed us to Torrentfreak's coverage of the RIAA's latest move: the major record labels have launched a copyright infringement lawsuit against Usenet.com. The complaint, filed in the federal District Court in New York, accuses Usenet.com of providing access to millions of copyright-infringing files and slams it for touting its service as a "haven for those seeking pirated content." Usenet.com has been refusing the labels' requests to block access to alleged "copyright infringing groups."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Sues Usenet.com

Comments Filter:
  • Ahh crap (Score:5, Funny)

    by Barny (103770) <bakadamage-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:05PM (#21002621) Homepage Journal
    Guess IRC and finally Gopher will be up next :/
    • Re:Ahh crap (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Threni (635302) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:09PM (#21002657)
      Took 'em years to get around to Usenet, though. Why? Perhaps they've only just heard about it?
      • Re:Ahh crap (Score:5, Funny)

        by MightyMartian (840721) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:19PM (#21002811) Journal

        Took 'em years to get around to Usenet, though. Why? Perhaps they've only just heard about it?


        It was me, I tell ya! That's right, Sammy, it was me. I was tired, ya see, tired of being your pirate pimp! So they's come it to me, see, these guys in a big Limo, see, and they tell's me, they says "Now look here, Thumbs, we knows you've got the goods on this Usenet gag. Spill the guts and we'll forget all about you selling Chinese Madonna CDs down by the docks."
      • Re:Ahh crap (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Otter (3800) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:35PM (#21002985) Journal
        Why? Perhaps they've only just heard about it?

        Usenet.com isn't Usenet.* It's a Usenet access provider that markets itself pretty transparently (although not transparently enough to be illegal, I'd guess) as a warez service.

        * Translation for all you "my hello.c is so 1337!" dweebs: Usenet.com != Usenet

        • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:45PM (#21003707)

          Usenet.com isn't Usenet.* It's a Usenet access provider that markets itself pretty transparently (although not transparently enough to be illegal, I'd guess) as a warez service.

          Don't think that Usenet.com is not usenet, and therefore usenet is safe. By now you should know that the RIAA tries to take one case against a weak defendant, and then leverage that win in the courts against everyone else. If they can win against Usenet.com and their servers, expect legal letters to go out to every other usenet node telling them to shut down, filter groups (yeah, like that would work), or face a lawsuit against a billion dollar corporation.

          This really is a big deal on a new front, and if they don't lose big time here, they'll try to roll over everyone else.

          The truth is that the RIAA truly believes that they are more important than absolutely everybody else in the world!

          • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:35PM (#21004173)
            This seems like it there may be a precedent for this case already:

            http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2006dltr0019.html [duke.edu]
            • by TheoMurpse (729043) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:39AM (#21006439) Homepage
              For those who don't want to take the time to read the "iBrief" (wtf?), it says that AOL's usenet service should not have qualified AOL under the safe harbor provisions. However, the article uses a very narrow interpretation of the definition of "ISP": a party that offers transmission, routing, or provision of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing. The article says that the user does not control where the usenet post goes after they make it, so the user has not specified a point of transmission, so with respect to usenet, AOL does not qualify as an ISP.

              However, the user specifies "rec.arts.whatever" as the end point. The user is oblivious to the IPs and server locations of various ISPs' usenet storage machines, but users don't know the actual IPs of Youtube.com, yet when they specify "youtube" as the location for an uploaded video, no one is suggesting that this technicality disqualifies Youtube from the safe harbor provisions. Youtube's video storage is probably on more than one machine with more than one IP, so, similar to Youtube, usenet is a web of servers, and the user does not choose a specific server as its target. Instead, the user chooses some nebulous "site" to send their data to. The site itself is not a real location, but an interconnected web of servers.

              Email is similar.
              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by TheoMurpse (729043)
                Furthermore, I'm flummoxed why a student with a masters degree in computer science would attack usenet in the way this author did. It's like she's the one student in the whole world who doesn't pirate, and the one CS person in the world who wants usenet to go down.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            The truth is that the RIAA truly believes that they are more important than absolutely everybody else in the world!
            The truth is that the RIAA truly believes that everybody else in the world owes them a debt, thanks to all the piracy that's interspersed throughout the world.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by shark72 (702619)

            "The truth is that the RIAA truly believes that they are more important than absolutely everybody else in the world!"

            When it comes to protecting the rights of their members, yeah. The AMA is more important than everybody else in the world regarding the interests of the doctors who are its members; the Ferret Protection Society is more important than anybody else in the world when it comes to ferret rights, and so on.

            Pick a cause, and you'll find somebody who's defending it. Even causes we don't like.

        • Usenet.com isn't Usenet.
          Yessir they've caught that usenet crowd good and proper now. That's the end of usenet for sure.

           
      • Re:Ahh crap (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:35PM (#21002991)
        Probably because they can't track who is using it as easily as P2P programs or torrents. To go after users will require them to get logs from the providers, which won't happen without a subpoena. Also, it seems like they're going after Usenet.com because they were branding their service as a way to get copies of content. I wonder if they will go after other providers, who are advertising the ability to have 20GB/month worth of conversations with other usenet users, but make no mention of copyrighted material that is available?
      • Re:Ahh crap (Score:5, Informative)

        by stefanlasiewski (63134) <slashdot@stefa n c o .com> on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:39PM (#21003051) Homepage Journal
        Don't confuse 'Usenet' with usenet.com. 'Usenet' is an internet-wide discussion system, with thousands of usenet nodes and of no central control.

        Usenet.com provides paid access to Usenet newsgroups, and happened to land a nice DNS name.
        • Re:Ahh crap (Score:5, Interesting)

          by entropy42 (109731) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:38PM (#21003649) Homepage
          I was the original owner of usenet.com - I registered it in 1994 or thereabouts. I sold it to someone (not sure if the present owner or not) for six figures in the late '90s.

          Heh, a google search for paulp@usenet.com (my address at the time) yields exactly one result [emoticon.com].

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by _KiTA_ (241027)

          Don't confuse 'Usenet' with usenet.com. 'Usenet' is an internet-wide discussion system, with thousands of usenet nodes and of no central control.

          Usenet.com provides paid access to Usenet newsgroups, and happened to land a nice DNS name.


          And, as a Usenet provider, hasn't the RIAA of yesteryear already fought this battle and lost? After all, aren't Usenet servers Common Carriers [wikipedia.org], like the telcos? The Telcos are not liable for what goes on over their networks, Usenet.com isn't, either.
          • Re:Ahh crap (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Korin43 (881732) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @09:47PM (#21004809) Homepage
            I think the point is that Usenet.com doesn't just have copywrited music, it's a major part of their advertising. Like if phone companies advertised as "A great way to plan terrorist attacks!" or something. (not that I think they should lose, I just think that it's more complicated than people are making it)
      • by gmezero (4448) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:03PM (#21003299) Homepage
        USENET FAQ

        Posted: 00:00:00 UTC on January 1, 1970
        Version 0.0.1

        Authro: Kibble
        Group: Alt.First.Post

        The first rule of Usenet is you don't talk about Usenet
      • Re:Ahh crap (Score:4, Interesting)

        by RobertM1968 (951074) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @09:14PM (#21004501) Homepage Journal

        It didnt take them years to do this. They've tried this before (they being big record labels and the porn industry). Some early cases that were before the DMCA were actually won. Later cases were tossed (except in the case of small NNTP providers who couldnt afford to continue the suit to it's logical conclusion).

        This reeks of an attempt to circumvent the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions, and makes this a bad thing.

        The RIAA wouldnt be trying this unless they thought they had something really serious up their sleeves - they know (through their members who have lost before) that the DMCA will protect Usenet (except in the case of ignoring takedown requests, etc).

    • Re:Ahh crap (Score:4, Funny)

      by HTH NE1 (675604) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:19PM (#21002803)

      Guess IRC and finally Gopher will be up next :/
      Jasper: [whispering] Are they talking about the bordello?
      Abe: No! The burlesque house. So just keep your mouth shut.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:06PM (#21002629)
    Pay no attention to those alt.binaries. subscriptions.
  • GG RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by visualight (468005) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:09PM (#21002653) Homepage
    Now everyone will know about usenet and how to access it.
  • by SirJorgelOfBorgel (897488) * on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:10PM (#21002661)
    I guess pigeons will be next. Woe is ye, oh little beasties of high capacity and ludicrous latency!
  • by noidentity (188756) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:10PM (#21002665)
    RIAA sues HTTP.com, RIAA sues USB 2.0, RIAA sues self?
  • by SpeedyDX (1014595) <speedyphoenixNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:11PM (#21002681)
    I misread the title as "RIAA Uses Usenet.com".

    Wow, what a difference two letters make, huh?
  • next up (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:12PM (#21002703) Homepage
    The complaint, filed in the federal District Court in New York, accuses Usenet.com of providing access to millions of copyright-infringing files

    Next up, the RIAA sues Nike, for their involvement in a "massive, global-scale sneaker net"
  • yoos net?? (Score:3, Funny)

    by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:16PM (#21002747)
    (hey you kids, get off my damn lawn!)

    sorry.

    anyway, what is this usenet stuff; and do I have to upgrade my copy of kermit to run it?

  • hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thatskinnyguy (1129515) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:17PM (#21002765)
    I think we all should just plead the Fifth one way or another. If the RIAA is targeting this old bastion of nerddom, what's next? Are they going to search Slashdot for their targets based on self-incriminating statements?
  • by commodoresloat (172735) * on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:19PM (#21002805)
    See what happens when you talk about Usenet?
    • by Xemu (50595) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:44PM (#21003099) Homepage
      When someone discusses Usenet, inevitably, someone (me! me!) will point out that what the RIAA is doing is very similar to what Hitler and the Nazis were wishing for.

      Hitler considered it appropriate for the state to adopt a view of what is a life worth living (ein lebenswertig Leben) and cast this ideal in aesthetic/ethical, or quasi-biological terms, and, he gave the state the means to the implementation of this ideal. The RIAA is, like Hitler, telling us how life should be lived and paints this ideal in ethical terms and they want to have the means to implement this ideal.

      There. Did it. Happy now?
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by cliffski (65094)
        your theoretical right to download a copyrighted britney spears album is equivalent to Auschwitz how exactly?
        its bullshit analogies like yours that make a complete laughing stock out of anyone who would suggest there is credibility to a debate over copyright reform.

        You should stand as a witness for the defense in every single RIAA court case. you would be more effective than 100 RIAA lawyers at making their case for them.

      • by Mean Variance (913229) <mean.variance@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:05PM (#21003331)

        Hitler considered it appropriate for the state to adopt a view of what is a life worth living (ein lebenswertig Leben) and cast this ideal in aesthetic/ethical, or quasi-biological terms, and, he gave the state the means to the implementation of this ideal. The RIAA is, like Hitler, telling us how life should be lived and paints this ideal in ethical terms and they want to have the means to implement this ideal. There. Did it. Happy now?

        Godwin's Law has been triggered. Stop the thread.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by houstonbofh (602064)
        Invoking Hitler to end an argument doesn't even work on usenet anymore. Sigh... End of an era...
    • by CodeBuster (516420) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:08PM (#21003369)
      The first rule of Usenet is you do not talk about Usenet...The second rule of Usenet is you DO NOT talk about Usenet...if this is your first time on Usenet then you have to upload.
  • by IcebergSlim (450399) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:25PM (#21002883)
    WTF? Usenet predates the WWW and is essentially just a protocol; they might as well sue "email" as well.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Chapter80 (926879)

      WTF? Usenet predates the WWW and is essentially just a protocol; they might as well sue "email" as well.
      Note, they did not sue Usenet, they sued Usenet.com.

      Usenet is a protocol. Usenet.com is a company. (Not that I agree with this strategy. just explaining...!)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by swillden (191260) *

      WTF? Usenet predates the WWW and is essentially just a protocol; they might as well sue "email" as well.

      Arguably, USENET predates the *Internet*, not just the Web. USENET feeds were originally delivered via UUCP, and it wasn't until the mid-80s that NNTP was created to allow the transport of USENET content over TCP/IP. Even then UUCP-based USENET feeds stuck around for several more years, until the early 90s or so. I started reading USENET in 1988, and my university was still getting it via UUCP then (I'm not sure if they even had an Internet connection then).

  • Please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blhack (921171) * on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:26PM (#21002891)
    Please, for the love of god, don't let this story go any further....please nobody post this to digg, or reddit, or any other place that will get it even more publicity. What the MAFRIAA wants is for all of us to be up in arms, and if we get the 14 year old ZOMFG HACK-ZORES on the case that is exactly what will happen.

    usenet will go the way of bittorrent.

    NOthing to see here folks, move along. /quickly now //QUICKLY!
    • Re:Please (Score:5, Informative)

      by moore.dustin (942289) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:37PM (#21003031) Homepage
      What way did bittorrent go exactly? My 'torrent use' has not been effected in the least from anything the RIAA or bittorrent themselves have done. As for usenet, even if it is shut down, only the name will take a hit. The whole community will reorganize 3 days later at a new domain, the same community, and a new vigor of secrecy. I mean really, the RIAA cannot do anything to stop us(Us being geeks/nerds). No matter what they do, we change our ways, improve our position against them(RIAA), and continue to do what we want, share files. Darknets and private trackers are already commonplace because of the RIAA - it just goes to show that the only thing that can control what the community does is the community itself.
  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:29PM (#21002921) Journal

    Geez, what is this, digg? usenet.com is just a company that gives payed access to usenet. The RIAA can't sue usenet anymore then it could sue HTTP (not that it wouldn't want to) but it sure as hell can sue Usenet.com the same as it can sue a company employing a webserver that hosts copyrighted files.

    I have no idea if usenet.com can be considered guilty under current laws, they do have the files in question on their servers and charge people money to download them, so they are directly profitting from these files. On the other hand, by the nature of usenet they have no control over what appears on their servers (they better not be blocking kiddie porn or they lost that defence).

    Are they a phone company just passing information, or are they a filesharer profitting from doing so.

    Intresting case BUT stop pretending that the RIAA is stupid enough to sue USENET, it is sueing a company that sells access to usenet. People here are quick to blame politicians for not knowing enough, but count the posts that don't even seem to know the difference between these two.

  • alt.binaries.warez.* (Score:3, Informative)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:40PM (#21003055) Homepage Journal
    Still exists? ive not seen them on an ISP for years.

    Why not just have a blanket suit against all people that have internet access. Then tax us all for our 'assumed guilt'. Sort of like the 'music CDR tax'.

  • Pointless (Score:5, Informative)

    by jemenake (595948) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @06:48PM (#21003147)
    If the RIAA's main complaint is that Usenet.com is offering access to alt.binaries.*, that's a little pointless. Now that NZB files are all the rage, the various pieces of each posting don't even have to be in one newsgroup, because the reference them by message-id. So, I could chop "Stairway to Heaven" into 20 pieces, post one piece to soc.singles, another piece to alt.flame, etc. etc... and then post the NZB somewhere and any NZB-aware program will be able to go get them. So... trying to shut off alt.binaries isn't going to stop anything.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      post one piece to soc.singles,

      Trust me, soc.singles is the one group you do not want to be caught with offtopic cross-posts. Those people are Mean!

  • by tjstork (137384) <todd.bandrowsky@NOSpAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:13PM (#21003427) Homepage Journal
    Al Gore, inventor of the Internet, is now the defendant in a 400 billion dollar lawsuit filed by RIA.
  • by t0qer (230538) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:37PM (#21003643) Homepage Journal
    http://stashbox.org/23136/P1010004.JPG [stashbox.org]

    Take a look at that old man in the middle of this picture. He's my boss. He owns a karaoke bar in San Jose California called the 7 Bamboo.

    This guy has been doing karaoke a loooong time. Up until 2002 and American idol, karaoke was sort of frowned on by most Americans. Then AI came out and there was a sudden surge in karaoke's popularity.

    http://www.7bamboo.com/cms/?q=node/210 [7bamboo.com]

    I did some screenshots of the Namm global music report in that article. I'll just summarize, basically the entire karaoke industry is making less money now than it was 10 years ago in 1997.

    Myself, i've seen our business hurt by piracy. Before 2002, we were some quirky little Japanese karaoke bar, pretty much one of maybe 4 karaoke venues in San Jose, but between 2002 and 2004 we saw a sharp decline in attendance, and a sharp growth in karaoke venues and it's been a constant uphill battle to keep customers coming back.

    I made a choice to not pirate karaoke at our club. We have about 7000 songs in our collection. This in in contrast to the 10-15 venues that have popped up in our area with anywhere between 50,000-150,000 songs.

    Karaoke is expensive. About $2 a track. So somebody please tell me, with a straight face how these new guys that just popped out of nowhere suddenly have a $300,000 karaoke collection. Fact is, they don't.

    It's still competition for us. Everyone that works at 7bamboo makes less money because of it. Less tips, less sales, less everything, but more work.

    Look at the face of that old man and tell me that usenet.com is in the right by enabling these people to screw his business over with competition running on pirated songs. The business he and his wife built was in jeopardy until I came along and gave it a hot beef injection of technology.

    Fortunately for them, and the rest of the 7b's employees, I can keep the place on the bleeding edge of karaoke technology without resorting to piracy. Still though, I think my time would have been better spent doing more worldly things.

    Personally, I hope the RIAA wins this one. Don't mod me a troll for voicing this opinion either, because since when has someone voicing a legitimate, validated opinion considered trolling.

    It's just not fair. Karaoke CD's have to be ripped carefully at 1x, so i've put over 400 manhours into ripping our 300 original CDG's. A pirate can suck off a newsgroup and have 7000 songs in a few hours. Given a few days, they'll have a 40-50k+ collection.

    BTW RIAA if you're reading this, look into alt.binaries.sounds.karaoke. Shut that one down first, plzktnx.

    --toq
    • by SomeJoel (1061138) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:51PM (#21003775)
      Most slashdotters that are against the RIAA/MPAA for their tactics would also be against the piracy you described. Typically, this community accepts "personal use" type file-sharing, where the song/movie is not then sold on the black market. In fact, the RIAA would be perfectly in the right to sue in this case. However, they should sue the pirating karaoke bars that are making profits because of piracy, not the medium from which they obtained them. Furthermore, they should not have to pay $220,000 per track in any case, but rather something more along the lines of actual loss (maybe a grand total of $300,000 as you cited in your example).
    • by Overzeetop (214511) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:59PM (#21003879) Journal
      I don't think anyone is really interested in protecting your competitors. Quite honestly...turn them in if you think their collection is pirated. I presume that you don't really care if I have a personal collection of karaoke tracks I've downloaded from the usenet^wsomewhere, because my basement "bar" doesn't really compete with you. In fact, if I get my friends involved in karaoke, they're more likely to do it in public...say, at your club.

      Taking stuff off usenet and re-selling it in bulk (which is what the "other" clubs may be doing) is a commercial use of the material, and it pretty lousy. I have a real hard time saying that folks trolling the 'net for some personal karaoke fetish is really a huge deal (karaoke publishers may disagree).

      FWIW, I don't have any karaoke. I hate karaoke, to be honest; mostly because I can't stand out-of-tune singers, even when I am drunk. I don't participate because I don't use my voice to sing on a regular basis and, like any instrument, it is not in the best shape.

      Oh, and for what it's worth, although you may find $300k an exorbitant amount to spend, for some of these retired electrical engineers (or whatever) they just want it all, and will drop "stupid" money on their pet projects. They'll probably go out of business when the market turns a bit thin again. If you're still around, you might even be able to buy their collection at firesale prices.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Jugalator (259273)

      Take a look at that old man in the middle of this picture.
      Hell no! I'll keep my eyes on the girl to the far right, thankyouverymuch! :-)~~
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gutnor (872759)
      As you say your competitor has a direct financial interest to pirate. But because he is making profit, even if he needs to pay 10,000$ for 150,000 songs, that's still a bargain for him and still give him an edge against you.

      RIAA's job should be to sue your competitor, that's what it is meant to do. Losing time and money suing single mom or services essentially used by joe student should make you angry more than anything else. ( especially I think karaoke tracks are not the usual mp3 - so probably your compe
    • by kindbud (90044) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @10:09PM (#21005017) Homepage
      So by your +5 Interesting logic, if instead you had a clothing store and your competition was selling counterfeit designer labels and hurting your business, the proper response response by the designer would be to sue the trucking company that delivered the counterfeit clothing?
  • Google Groups (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @07:53PM (#21003809)
    How long before they take on Google Groups? (And why didn't any of the posters above beat me to this Insightful +5 thought?)

    Hey RIAA, why not go pick on someone your own size? Google Groups probably does more with usenet than anyone else. But right? They actually have real lawyers, and your case is a crock if it was ever challenged by an equally financed opponent.

  • by plasmacutter (901737) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @09:08PM (#21004457)
    to quote this informed poster [slashdot.org] from a previous usenet related infringement story.

    The problem for the MPAA is that Usenet providers have been deemed to be 17 USC 512(a) service providers. That means they can't be successfully sued for copyright infringement for material traversing their networks, and they need not even respond to takedown notices for such material. Yep, it's their own law, the DMCA, working against them. Though before that law, the Netcom case left them pretty hamstrung anyway.


    Let's hope Usenet.com has good lawyers who know about this.
  • by r_jensen11 (598210) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @10:03PM (#21004951)
    16,548,583 songs available? And I can download them at blazing fast speeds? Those bastards are going to fear our wrath!
  • by kimvette (919543) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @11:36PM (#21005707) Homepage Journal
    . . . the less interested I become in their "product"

    Keep fighting your customers, RIAA. You're alienating us all, thousands at a time. See my previous posts on the matter. I bought more CDs at the height of Napster (the original Napster) than I did in the 13 years of owning CD players previous to that. I have bought approximately SIX music CDs TOTAL since you succeeded in shutting down Napster (ded kitty -- http://i.afterdawn.com/news/napster_mainpage_2002_09_04.gif [afterdawn.com] ).

    What do I listen to now?
    Music I already own.
    Talk radio.
    Classical.
    Christian radio.

    no new pop stations. No hard rock stations. I avoid getting exposed to new material, because if I listen to new material on the radio, I am supporting you indirectly by listening to paid-for-by-advertising content. If I listen to new material, I'd be tempted to download it, which will lead to viral marketing if I talk to so-and-so about this great new song I downloaded. . . and I would be tempted to purchase it, which would directly send you profits. No, instead I decided to completely avoid it and not be your customer, directly or indirectly. I'm sure I am not the only one.

    In summary:

    RIAA members, F*** you.

FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies.

Working...