RIAA Files 532 Lawsuits 877
Like2Byte writes "The RIAA is at it again. This time, Yahoo! News is reporting that 532 file sharers' IP addresses are being submitted to the courts instead of their names because ISPs decline to name people and the courts previous blocks. Music lawyers filed the newest cases against 'John Doe' defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses -- and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live."
Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect there may be some policies written very quickly, to say "not long at all".
Re:Time (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what will happen when your server crashes or you wipe over a hard drive or you go out of business or you have a drive malfunction or something - and
Re:Time (Score:3, Informative)
I suspect there may be some policies written very quickly, to say "not long at all".
Actually, I sysad at a few local ISPs, (outsourcing isn't just for Indian workers, y'know) and one of the client ISPs long ago made it clear to keep logs as short as possible to avoid problems like this.
Most records are deleted automatically (a la logrotate.d) in a month. The only real reason to keep these records is for tech support, which vir
Re:Time (Score:5, Informative)
In order to tie any specific IP to a particular user the connection has to remain active and the lease on the IP cannot expire.
This is why some macintosh users were accused of running the kazza client - the IP in question was linked to the mac adress currently in the arp tables. I have never encountered an isp that logs thier arp tables. So the customer who gets slapped with the lawsuit may not have been the customer who was originally sharing mp3's.
The only time usernames would be used at all if some sort of radius authentication is required by the isp before a dhcp address is leased (pap - chap, whatever). The most common broadband technologies that use radius is PPPOE & PPP over ATM.
The majority of ISP's used bridged ethernet technologies that don't require radius authentication. The only way of matching an IP in that case is via mac address.
Many firewall / router products allow for mac address cloning - which essentially allows a user to change his or her mac adress. IANAL but if the corresponding mac adress was not found on an offenders network then the RIAA would have no case.
In either way - due to the fact that most residental broadband services only offer DHCP addresses - the method that the RIAA is using to identify thier victims is highly unreliable.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:NAT (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes, my neighbours use it too when their net is slow. All in all, one DSL shared by ateast 5-6 peple.
Now, any one person could have used their system for P2P. Are the going to take all 6 of us to court just because one IP has been logged?
Has anyone had similar experiences? What would the RIAA do in such a situation?
Re:NAT (Score:3, Informative)
This Register article [theregister.com] seems to indicate that the Trojan Horse Excuse syndrome is quickly catching on.
Do not know how well it would hold against the RIAAs corporate hoodlums, but seems to have some effect
DHCP? (Score:3, Redundant)
Re:DHCP? (Score:3, Insightful)
All this means now is that the process is longer. The RIAA now has to go through the courts and get the courts to issue
Oh my (Score:4, Funny)
Then work on 172.16.#.#
You know they wanna.
I see (Score:5, Funny)
TK-421! Why aren't you at your post?
Re:I see (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA resources (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RIAA resources (Score:3, Funny)
You know the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie "Terminator." It's like that;
Listen! And understand! That RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are sued!
All I can say is "May the Schwarz be with you."
Just saw an ad from the movie (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just saw an ad from the movie (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, unfortunately it's totally missing the point.
I've seen one of these ads (3 different ones so far) in front of every movie i've seen for the last for months.
HELLO!?!? I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??! HELLO? WE'RE THE DAMN PAYING CUSTOMERS.
shit. Talk about missing the point and annoying the wrong people.
Re:Just saw an ad from the movie (Score:3, Insightful)
I JUST PAID $10 to sit in this theatre and you're preaching to me to not steal off the internet!??!
The intended market for those ads includes the projectionist and the prick in the nth row with a camcorder.
Re:Just saw an ad from the movie (Score:5, Funny)
My first reaction to seeing that ad for the first time was, "there's going to be some guy, some place, who's going to think to himself, "Holy shit! I can get movies online for free?! What the hell am I doing here then??""
Re:Just saw an ad from the movie (Score:4, Funny)
ISP records (Score:3, Insightful)
hrmm (Score:5, Funny)
Your honor, my client, 216.250.128.12, is innocent. He was coerced to download those files by RIAA's public enemy number 1 - 127.0.0.1. There is also plenty of evidence to implicate his cronies, 192.168.1.1 and 10.0.1.0 as well.
This 127.0.0.1 guy sure is in trouble (Score:4, Funny)
They're after the college students again... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They're after the college students again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, yeah. Then go look and see if the fool actually is infringing, and scream at him.
Rolls eyes. (Score:3, Funny)
Go get em boys....
Good for them. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure the RIAA is still evil, but they're improving their tactics, and should be commended for that. Going after P2P sharing services is wrong, demanding proprietary information from ISPs is wrong, filing John Doe copyright infringement suits is NOT WRONG - it's EXACTLY what you should do if you find people sharing binary apps derived from your GPL'd project and you don't have a way to contact them yourself.
Re:Good for them. (Score:3, Interesting)
You hit the nail on the head, this is how it's should be done. It also opens up an interesting situation for the RIAA that they didnt have before, and not just the money required to file a lawsuit first.
Before, when they could supoena the ISP directly, the RIAA could review who the person was prior to filing a suit. Thus, if the name of a politician, a music industry exec, or major public figure were to come up, they could just not sue that person because of the PR ramificat
You're a bit off (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the exact same shakedown tactics they've been using all along, they're just jumping through a few more hoops to do it. Now, John Doe issues aside, why are the filing all 532 lawsuits in Wa
Court costs involved? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you stack the cost of the lawsuits on one side, and the average settlement win from people scared out of their wits on the other... is there a profit being made here?
I'm betting the answer is 'no'. And all that means is the Recording Industry is attempting to achieve compliance through fear. All authority derives from force, as the old saying goes
I wonder if that's worth the money they're spending.
This is the correct way to do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Filing against John Does is the correct way to do it (from my armchair lawyer stance), if the ISP's won't voluntarily divulge the information.
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
"Your honor, we would like to file charges against 04ef:4326:33d6:13a9......"
Actually, your honor, I am not 200.256.49.3 (Score:5, Funny)
wireless routers (Score:5, Interesting)
how are they going to address that???
Re:wireless routers (Score:3, Funny)
If plausible deniability works for the government, it damned well ought to work for individuals.
Rose colored glasses... (Score:3, Interesting)
John Doe warrants for DNA? (Score:4, Interesting)
However several new reports allow this and it's still? waiting for supreme court review. I can't find anything about any further challenges- but I don't know what I'm not searching.
http://www.courttv.com/news/hiddentraces/yalem/
https://coldhit.doj.ca.gov/dna/news10.htm
http://www.denverda.org/html_website/denver_da/
http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/si
This calls for a "The Prisoner" reference: (Score:4, Funny)
Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear RIAA (Score:4, Funny)
Music lawyers filed the newest cases against 'John Doe' defendants -- identified only by their numeric Internet protocol addresses -- and expected to work through the courts to learn their names and where they live.
This type of "I-dunno-but-U-figure-out-Urself-,-judge-!" tactics is already copyrighted by Darl. RIAA will receive a nice letter from ScO concerning potential lawsuit for infringement of their IP in a few days, probably before they lose one of their "I-dunno" cases this Friday. Maybe we should establish RIAA/SCO Survival Funds so we won't lose two of the most entertaining litigation clowns.
If You Haven't Taken Action Already (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, our friends at the RIAA are more than happy if you'll keep buying your CD's at fifteen dollars a pop, then every few years they'll try to make what you already purchased obsolete by offering a new release with better packaging.
Sometimes I wonder if they are deliberately incompetent in issuing their first release. I remember back in 1991, I picked up Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue." Five years later, the record company had re-released it, along with the shocking announcement that one of the original CD's songs had been mastered at the wrong speed -- so the CD I owned had a song that was therefore in the wrong key and at the wrong tempo. And for this incompetence, on their part, I was supposed to shell out another fifteen bucks to get the fixed version.
Understandably, people are tired of this crap, so they've resorted to downloading music. That's where the RIAA's new revenue generating tactic comes in: they're using their legal department to send letters, coercing downloaders to pay up at about seven grand a pop. That's a lot of shiny CD's.
So buy CD's or download illegally -- either way the RIAA wins. Unless you decide to get out of the game.
If you follow the RIAA's tactics at all, you might have decided it's appropriate to not give these bloodsuckers another dime of your money. So here are a couple tips. Don't buy from labels that are affiliated with the RIAA [boycott-riaa.com] -- and don't buy legally downloaded music from these labels just because they happen to be on the iTunes record store.
Second, check out sites like Magnatune. [magnatune.com] Read everything you can about their business practices. These people are cool, their artists' music is awesome, and they deserve our support.
BS (Score:3, Insightful)
DHCP logs??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Next stumbling block.. (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole thing is a joke. (Score:5, Interesting)
Like I said, what a joke.
(If you're interested, I've got the e-mail chain between my buddy and EMI.)
Anyone tried tracing those IPs? (Score:4, Informative)
I just did a random few. I'd love to see the RIAA sue people in France, Germany, and all of the other countries IPs who are in that list. I saw a couple of 212 addresses and figured, no, they aren't from the states so I did a lookup on them. Low and behold, European address blocks. Have fun RIAA. Something tells me your tactics won't fly as well outside of the US as it does within...
heh (Score:4, Funny)
That's what I would do. (Score:3, Informative)
RIAA tried to avoid that process by using the DMCA subpoena provisions, and got rebuffed. Now they are going through the routine process that they would have to have done without the DMCA. In this case they are very likely to prevail, by the way.
Just another step in the P2P wars. This one is not terribly controversial.
Carefull what you wish for (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA got your info- sent a letter telling you to settle. If you didn't you get dragged to court.
The way it is now:
RIAA goes to court, gets your info, sues you.
I'm not saying your ISP should be giving out your info to anyone, but now you name is in public record as a defendent in a lawsuit. Probably won't get off the hook as easy as the first batch of defendents either.
I'm guess I'm glad I don't distribute..
Thank God for DSL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank God for DSL (Score:3, Informative)
The big ISP's wouldn't destroy their logs on their own, and they wouldn't turn off logging, and it's a crime to destroy them after subpeona'd... So you really gain nothing.
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I'll still say that the actual prosecution of filesharers is ridiculous, but at least if they're going through the court system I don't have to be pissed off that they're using police-like activities sanctioned by some piece of horrible horrible legislation.
Confusion over how infringing files are identified (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think they are using a method as trivial as "they responded to a search for name label_muzak.mp3" you are mistaken. This would definitely not be credible evidence in court (anything could be in the file) and it's not how the RIAA is going about tracking illegal uploads.
The method they are using has been described in some of the articles concerning the subpoenas issued to users of the networks and it works as follows:
1. The RIAA employs modified nodes in the various networks (KaZaa and Morpheous seem to be the big two) to search for known song names or groups.
2. When they find a match, they attempt to download the entire file from the user. This point is important: if they can't prove you actually uploaded a copyrighted file in its entirety, they don't have a case.
3. When the upload is complete they perform an MD5 sum on the content and verify that it matches a database of known copyrighted files. If they didn't do this step, they would have to have someone listen to it to be sure its actually what they think it is.
Given the nature of peer networks, there are a number of common rips (i.e. identical) of songs widely shared among many users. Thus the MD5 sums will match for the same file among many users.
This is all the information they need to bring a suit against your. They have an IP address and time/date associated with the upload, they have a verified MD5 sum for the upload that matches known copyrighted files.
This information was covered in a previous article here: Innocent File-Sharers Could Appear Guilty? [slashdot.org] and the techniques they use are explicitly designed to withstand the scrutiny of a legal proceeding.
All of the cases of mistaken identity to date (the mac user sent a nasty gram, the grandmother, etc) appear to be mistakes by the ISP correlating a given IP + date into the right account holder, and not a flaw in their methods associated with identifying infringing content traded over the networks.
Suing... who? (Score:5, Insightful)
So they're bringing lawsuits against unidentified IP-addresses, which could be anything from a NAT router to a university network, a government agency, or whatever. Many of these lawsuits will therefore be against companies which are not liable for their customers' actions.
This is ridiculous.
(IANAL, as if it wasn't obvious)
534 Lawsuits? (Score:4, Funny)
This is RIAA maths... so was it actually 27 lawsuits but some of them were really serious?
Re:hehe, wasn't me.. (Score:3, Informative)
ISPs keep a copy of what IP was leased to what MAC at what times.
It seems the forgot an additional 256 IP's (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Here are the IPs in question (Score:4, Informative)
You can check that here [eff.org]
Re:Here are the IPs in question (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here are the IPs in question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Here are the IPs in question NO WAY!!! (Score:5, Informative)
http://128.111.80.86/ [128.111.80.86]
Points to....wait for it.....
"Asset Protection at UCSB"
Too good to be true!!
Re:Here are the IPs in question (Score:3, Informative)
Waves hand.... (Score:5, Funny)
Are *YOU* on the list? (Score:5, Funny)
and find out.
Of course IP addresses are rather pointless without a date and time. I switched from a 208.*.*.* to a 66.*.*.* address just this morning.
Lust like the lottery... (Score:5, Funny)
Second three numbers - coming closer.
Third three numbers - danr! Lost once again!
Re:Here are the IPs in question (Score:5, Interesting)
12.100.15.167
204.201.220.33
208.150.224.18
216.136.13.252
216.38.33.66
216.
38.201.184.162
63.199.63.218
64.132.1
64.242.223.111
65.105.125.126
66.250.69.1
210.73.74.200 is in 3 times
I count 518 uniques
Re:Here are the IPs in question (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Here are the IPs in question (Score:3, Funny)
my ip at home ends in .1 and to make it even more unusual it also has a 0 in there (as in XXX.0.XXX.1)
Yeah, but 127.0.0.1 doesn't count!
Nice... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here are the IPs in question (Score:3, Funny)
C:\>ipconfig
Sorry, you have the wrong person.
Re:Here are the IPs in question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here are the IPs in question (Score:5, Funny)
Whew! What a relief! (Score:5, Funny)
Couldn't find it in that list!
Good thing too - I'd reallly get busted!
Re:Here are the IPs in question (Score:4, Funny)
You Have Been Trolled (Score:4, Informative)
Probably just a list of pingable addresses generated by nmap -iR 532 -sP. Too many of these addresses are outside the U.S., and too many of them seem to be resolving to hosts that are easily tracked down without needing to go through an ISP. mail.samaritanbethany.com? Come on, that one doesn't require a subpoena, just a whois lookup or a visit to their site. Its a retirement home in Rochester Minn. If the RIAA were going after them, they wouldn't waste their time with Verizon in NY when the provider is Qworst.
Has anyone else seen a copy of the lawsuit yet? It may show up on some court's website tomorrow, but there isn't a copy of the suit on the RIAA's site. I have written to the press contacts at the RIAA asking for a copy of the lawsuit, but I haven't yet received a response.
the AC
Re:Gee... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gee... (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot: Penalizing fast typists (and fast thinkers) since 2000
------------
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
It's been 9 seconds since you hit 'reply'!
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the pr
Re:Gee... (Score:5, Interesting)
An ISP can be held responsible in situations where it does not keep records like radius logs. Since the ISP would be unable to prove they didn't do it (they being the ISP), presented with evidence that shows the illegal activity came from their network, it would almost be an automatic loss for them in court. Don't expect any compassion from the court, once the judge points out that your irrisponsibility is borderline deceptive and unethical business practice, you'll probably get either a maximum fine or harsher term.
This is much like loaning your car to a drunk stranger. You automatically become legally liable for anything he does behind the wheel due to your own irrisponsibility.
People forget that the Internet is a communications service. It's not like the phone company doesn't keep a log of all the phone numbers you dial, times dialed, duration of call, the date/time in GMT, etc.
Re:Gee... (Score:5, Informative)
Is there someone who actually knows with certainty the answer to this point? It is important for how this whole story will play out, methinks.
Re:Gee... (Score:4, Insightful)
The flawed logic I am trying to dis-spell is the "I could start an ISP, then my friends and I can hack sites all day long, not keep logs, and be immune from any prosecution." idea.
Anyone who has followed a few court cases knows that such an asinine concept will result in failure.
Fact is, I did abuse for a major ISP for 4 years. I also have done several years of Information Security. I've also turned over my fair share of evidence to various agencies. I know what not to do, and not keeping records is one of them.
Not irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not irrelevant (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)
In a relatively static corporate network, you're going to keep renewing the same IP address over and over and over. That's how DHCP works. (After your lease is 50% up, your 'puter asks the DHCP server if it can renew the lease on that IP addy again.) There are people on the LAN at work whose IP hasn't changed in years, despite being DHCP clients.
I don't know why ISPs mix up the pool of IP addresses, but sure enough I have a new one (though my subnet hasn't chagned) every week or so.
Re:Gee... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gee... (Score:5, Informative)
In point of fact, I know most do. I know several people who work in support or engineering for several ISPs and keeping such logs is not unusual. The existence of a given set of logs can almost be taken for granted, what you can't take for granted is how long such logs might be kept.
I'm sort of working on this same problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
As an internal debugging/security tool, this is *great* information. We can make sure that people aren't abusing the network. We can find and disable compromised machines with very simple tools. We can easily do tons of other useful administrative tasks.
However, I *really* worry that the information could be subpoenad and used against individual students by the likes of the RIAA/MPAA. I've been harping on upper management to let us purge the history after roughly a week (tops), which would give us plenty of debugging time, and at the same time not give the legal system enough time to issue a subpoena before the information is gone.
It's really a wierd situation for me. The tools I'm working on are extremely powerful, and will definitely save our network guys a lot of time. But there's a distinct possibility that the information we gather could be used in ways that I, personally, find abhorrent.
It makes me wonder about other developers working on software that's used for security: it's a fascinating job, and has tons of really good applications. But at the same time each piece moves us one step closer an Orwellian society becoming possible. Is this something I/we should really be persuing, given the potential outcome?
--Jeremy
Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
The University owns that network, not the users. I suspect the users sign an acceptable use policy, no? Does that policy specifically prohibit certain conduct?
Your concern for the rank and file users, while p
Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for "university property" and whatnot, you clearly have the situation reversed. Universities exist for the benefit of the students, and not vice versa. Networks are student resources, not a Pavlovian carrot to teach them your personal idea of right and wrong. The RIAA is clearly using terrorist tactics, using P2P as sleight-of-hand fake to scare people off even "fair use" applications.
You seem to have a real "God complex". Us and Them. My guess is that you, for the moment, find yourself on the priveledged side of that divide. If justice prevails, you'll find yourself victimized by someone just like you. Hopefully soon.
Re:I'm sort of working on this same problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
So if you destroy it, it is not a problem because it wasn't evidence at the time. Until then, it's just data. If you destroy it after you get the subpeona, then it's a problem. Why do you think they have those guys run around and hand out papers for? To make an auditable trail so the court can bitch slap you for not doing what they want because they KNOW you knew what they wanted you to do.
At worst, the University admins might end up in a long discussion about your network SOP with the FBI or something, but get fucking real. All the shoes I ever wore in my lifetime could be evidence too... but I sure as hell am not going to keep them when they wear out. (If any court wants my shoes, they are welcome to them, my feet sweat like crazy when doing first person shooters.) However any court wanting me to produce shoes from 10th grade won't get them, and I won't get in trouble because I don't have them either.
Reality Check (Score:3, Interesting)
Oviously I'm missing something - why are you worried? If they're breaking the law they deserve to get busted, if they are not, your logs will not point legal accusations at innocent students.
Yes we all hate the RIAA for their a-moral and insensitive behaviour, but in the end if they're subpoena'ing information it's because they have *some* evidence of violation of copyri
Re:Gee... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Gee... (Score:3, Informative)
I have yet to see any requirement to keep any logs. I've asked, but noone has ever had an answer.
Re:Gee... (Score:3, Insightful)
I know an entire sentence is quite a bit to read (my post was only one sentence, btw), but I specifially said I believe the PATRIOT Act is such a law. When working at a company as a vendor to Sprint, on an enterprise instant messaging project, logging features were a huge deal with them to be comliant with the PATRIOT Act. I certainly admit that I don't know for sure myself. I suppose you also don't remember the stories of bookstores trashing customer records rather than risk being f [google.com]
Re:Gee... (Score:4, Informative)
I did read the entire sentence.
Here is a link to the Patriot Act: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. [epic.org], but what is not clear is whether that is a preliminary version or the final version.
In any event, I don't see anything in it mandating that ISPs keep any kind of records of their customer's activity. Section 212 does discuss the disclosure of customer records, but I don't see anything there that mandates that records be kept.
On a quick reading, the sections referred to don't seem to require any records be kept.
At TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 - STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS [cornell.edu], you can find the sections referring to the records.
For example, from Section 2709,
So, if you are asked for records, you must provide those records in your custody or possession. I don't see anything there mandating that you keep any such records.
The other sections are pretty interesting, but they seem to be more interested in keeping ISPs from providing confidential records without proper authorization.
The real question is, "Just what records must be kept?"
My guess is that you don't have to keep any records unless ordered to keep such records by a court of law.
In summary, it is very clear that if you have such records, you may be required to provide them under some circumstances. But I don't see anything mandating that you keep such records at all. I suspect that a judge could order the ISP to keep particular records, but what if there is no such order?
Here's another idea!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of you claim to hate the RIAA almost as much (if not more) than Microsoft or SCO, but can't seem to live without their product!
Downloading the music for free (therefore depriving the RIAA of revenue from the sale of the CD) does nothing but give them ammunition for the press and clueless legislators.
If you really want to knock the RIAA out, stop listening to their music period!! Don't listen to the radio, don't download songs (of RIAA-signed musicians), and don't buy their CDs.
Re:Here's another idea!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I haven't boughten an RIAA CD in years. Now I buy all my music vinyl and download. That way, it's perfectly legal, I get a lot more, I get it cheaper, and $0 goes to the RIAA.
Re:Yes! Finally.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Distributing others copyrighted works is illegal. And has been for a long time. The internet does not make this legal just because it is simple to do it, or beacuse you can do it more anonymously.
When people cry that we need new laws to regulate the internet, such as DMCA, I say bullshit! Use the good old copyright laws and go after the offenders (uploaders). Don't attack the technology (napster, P2P). Don't attack the infrastructure (ISPs, censorship). Forget about DRM and all such crap. Go after
Re:Yes! Finally.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes! Stop producing anything! That'll show those nasty pirates!
Sorry, but being denied something that hasn't been created is less of a problem for me than being denied something that was created but is now inaccessable because of draconian copyright laws.
because people break the social contract that is copyright and steal. It's a shame really.
The social contract was broken a long time ago... by the content producers. When copyright was extended long past absurd lengths the writing was on the wall. The present day piracy was predicted way back in 1841 [baen.com]. Here's a quote from that link (Thomas Macaulay speaking against copyright extension): Seems to sum it up quite nicely.
Re:Intellectual Property theft is still theft... (Score:5, Informative)
READ A BOOK!
a Senator IS at the end of one IP (Score:4, Funny)
He probably cheats at CounterStrike too. Fucker.