Telcos Stand Against RIAA 308
john82 writes "In an interesting and insightful article, NetworkWorld Fusion discusses how lawyers for SBC and Verizon are fighting the RIAA's attempts to monitor their customers. As we've heard before, RIAA wants the telcos to report when users download any copyrighted material. Lawyers for SBC and Verizon are fighting back. They also claim that the RIAA is trying to grant themselves powers that are outside of even the Patriot Act. Now where have heard that before? NWFusion also points out that RIAAs handwaving, threats, tantrums have less to do with protecting the rights of musicians, than with protecting the revenue stream created by an out-of-date distribution system." In other RIAA news, taped2thedesk writes "According to the Washington Post and Ars Technica, the RIAA will now contact P2P users before suing them." The RIAA's not so bad, they'll settle out of court over the phone, if you don't mind paying up instead of getting a lawyer.
So does this mean ... (Score:3, Funny)
Is this also the week that eggs are bad for us ?
Re:So does this mean ... (Score:5, Insightful)
But taking your comment seriously for a moment I might point out that offering positive feedback to one's enemy when they behave in a manner you find desirable isn't hypocrisy.
KFG
Report copyrighted material? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Report copyrighted material? (Score:2, Informative)
All works are copyrighted from the moment they are fixed in a tangible medium, that is in this case, written to the server's hard disk.
Re:Report copyrighted material? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm afraid it's beliefs such as you have just expressed that are part of the problem.
There is much that is not "owned," believe it or not, and I may do as I wish with that material and it's "nobody's nevermind," not even to the extent that they have the right to "peer over my shoulder" to make sure.
KFG
Re:Report copyrighted material? (Score:2)
Re:Report copyrighted material? (Score:2)
Re:Report copyrighted material? (Score:5, Funny)
and forwards the porn to the network admin for closer inspection
Re:Report copyrighted material? (Score:2)
According to the Berne convention, everything is copyrighted, so such a filter should be relatively easy.
Pity the person receiving the alerts by email though... "Downloading 1.43E+7 emails; average size 800KiB"
Re:Report copyrighted material? (Score:5, Funny)
KFG
Heh. (Score:5, Informative)
No doubt the phone companies are more on the ball, but even then I'd be surprised if they could tell what exactly was coming down the pipe without copying it and reassembling it themselves. Probably the most they could do (economically) is flag high use addresses for the RIAA to check.
Re:Report copyrighted material? (Score:2)
Re:Report copyrighted material? (Score:2)
Then again, almost all IP packets would have that bit set to 1, since webpages are copyrighted, USENET posts, etc.
Re:Report copyrighted material? (Score:2)
How considerate.. (Score:3, Insightful)
What choice do most people have? None.
Re:How considerate.. (Score:2)
For instance, let's say the RIAA makes a big mistake and sues the kid of a hot shot lawyer with plenty of resources, who decides to bite and take the whole thing to a long-winded public jury trial.
Presumably, the RIAA would just drop the case, where what you really need them to do is get a judge/jury who think that suing 12 year old kids for copying music from millionaires deserves either to be thrown out or re-educated with listening to the com
Its about time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe big business can accomplish what a million screaming geeks can't...
sig?
Re:Its about time... (Score:2, Interesting)
They should have asked that the DMCA be declared invalid.
yo.
Time to pick up a feature (Score:5, Funny)
"Hello, SBC Customer Service? Yes, I'd like to order Call Screening for my -- why, yes, that is the number I'd like to block. How did you know? Hmm, three days? Fine. Thank you very much." *click*
Re:Time to pick up a feature (Score:5, Informative)
There are certainly people who will have the software able to trade, the machines to run it, on ISPs the RIAA claims, but who DON'T trade. Whats their error rate hitting then? somewhere up around 10% of people they're taking legal action against
It's shotgun tactics.
Re:Time to pick up a feature (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Time to pick up a feature (Score:2)
Re:Time to pick up a feature (Score:2)
-Pat
Mine goes like this... (Score:2)
Me: "May I please have the full details of your name, company and address."
RIAA: "Wha.."
Me: "I need to inform you that you have violated the Do Not Call Registry. I am not interested in your services".
RIAA: Click.
Oh please, this is only a cost thing. (Score:2, Insightful)
At the risk of my karma, I'd just like to say that this whole thing is getting to the point where I just wish the RIAA would fuck off and die, and take SCO with them. How do companies survive so long after so many people actively loath them?
That doesn't make sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Gettign sued by someone else. (Score:2)
Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh please, this is only a cost thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because much more people don't know or don't care. Tens of millions people buy what RIAA sells. I think that all this antifilesharing campaign's real purpose is just to frighten the majority of people. They aren't very familiar with the details, what is really legal, what is not, etc. They just hear over and over that downloading of mp3s is illegal and may end up in jail. So they just keep buying...
Telcos not perfect either (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you assume they're suing the RIAA just to protect your privacy, think again. The main reason is to avoid the costs of looking up someone's info every time the RIAA issues a subpoena.
Re:Telcos not perfect either (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Telcos not perfect either (Score:3, Insightful)
I see. So if their motives are purely to maximize their income and, as such, they suddenly work out a deal with the RIAA that the RIAA pays them whenever they have to comply with any of the RIAA subpoenas, and keep this a secret all the while continuing to appear to fight the RIAA, you'll have no problem with that? They'll continue to appear to fight the RIAA so it's not like you'll notice any difference.
Motiv
Re:Telcos not perfect either (Score:2)
Well, if they work out a deal with the RIAA that ends up screwing me, then the situation has changed,
Re:Telcos not perfect either (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Telcos not perfect either (Score:2)
Re:Telcos not perfect either (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never had bad phone service. It's always worked. Even when the power goes out, I can pick up a hard-wired phone and get dialtone. I've never had a problem with clarity of my phone connections -- they are always crystal clear. I've never had a call fail because of bandwidth unavailability. The service has a reasonable cost, and their bean counters will usually let you get a month in arrears before they cut you off. I've used two different cable companies and two different telephone companies for broadband, and DSL beat out cable modem both times. The DSL connections are more reliable, both in continuous connection times and in steady bandwidth availability. The telephone companies will market to those who want to run services through their pipe and even make blocks of static IP addresses available, while the cable companies dole out static IPs stingily and charge three times as much.
So, in a nutshell, telcos produce a superior quality service that does what it's supposed to do virtually all the time and for a good price. What is to hate?
It's easy to hate Microsoft because of their ridiculous EULAs, overpriced software, and hard-on for Digital Restrictions Management. It's easy to hate the RIAA for wanting to bankrupt people already near the poverty line and for refusing to admit that just maybe they are putting out lower quality product at higher prices in a sluggish economy and that just maybe their failure to adapt to new technology might be a straw woven into the handbasket that is taking their business to Hell.
So what have the telocs done to earn such ire?
Re:Telcos not perfect either (Score:2)
That's a federal regulation that they maintain power. It's not the goodwill of the phone company to do so.
So, in a nutshell, telcos produce a superior quality service that does what it's supposed to do virtually all the time and for a good price. What is to hate?
You must be lucky. I get slammed by long distance companies once every two years or so... even when I make NO long distance calls. Hell, I do
Re:Telcos not perfect either (Score:2)
I had a second phone line in my house for Internet only. It took me all of 2 minutes to set up with Sprint. "I want the following services, only: local service, tone dialing. I want no local toll carrier, and no long distance carrier. Yes, I want to lock these choices in. No, I don't give you premission to contact me with special long distance offers. No, I'll do the installation myself, thanks. Yes, good-bye. Click"
24
Re:Telcos not perfect either (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll tell you why I hate the telcos:
1) The service is absurdly overpriced for what you get. I can go to fry's a pick up a commodity 100mbps switch for less than $10 per port, but can I get decent data service to my house for less than $60/mo? No.
2) Yes my basic phone service is quite reliable and I can always dial 911. That's because the California PUC requires it, and there are very stiff penalties for failing to deliver this minimal level of service. But what if I want
Ok, uhh, one thing (Score:5, Insightful)
For one there is just the switches and routers themselves. Not small, not cheap. We aren't talking $60, $600, or $6000 but tens of thousands of dollars for a single blade (of which one chasse holds many) in some cases. Then there is the fact that copper ethernet won't run over long distances; 100 metres is the spec limit, so we are talking some other kind of technology, never mind your house doesn't have the wiring to it for that. There is then of course the cost of maintaining all this infastucters. Stuff breaks, it needs to be replaced, and in the case of wires to houses, it's not cheap often.
Then there are the two biggest costs: The support staff for customers and the bandwidth. Data doesn't magically get on the Internet, bigass lines to other carries are required and that's not cheap in any fashion.
As for laying fibre to your house, you have NO concept of how expensive that sort of thing is. It wasn't cheap to build our copper network. It took many years and a lot of dough. To upgrade the whole thing to fiber will cost even more and probably take longer. You don't just wave a wand, you have to dig shit up, lay cable and so on. Also fibre requires additonal percaustion since it really can't be spliced if it is going over any sort of distance.
Look, there are a LOT of problem with the phone companies. I'm sure I've dealt with more than you have. However, just because you can buy an 8-port consumer grade, made by Linksys, switch for $60 does NOT mean that the telcos can get a carrier class switch for the same price, much less everything else needed. It's not like they buy a bunch of cheap Linksys gear and hook it together and everything works magically.
Re:Ok, uhh, one thing (Score:3, Insightful)
It was an analogy - I'm not suggesting that SBC can run the phone system on linksys equipment, jackass.
But the rest of the world has moved to packet switching while the telcos are holding on to their channellized services and custom features like frame relay and inter-LATA crap because it LETS THEM KEEP THEIR PRICES HIGH. DSL/T1/T3 are
Re:Telcos not perfect either (Score:2)
Why do everyone hate the telcos?
I've never had bad phone service.It's always worked.
Oh! Someone from outside the US!
Re:Telcos not perfect either (Score:3, Informative)
Let me introduce you to this little letter I got from Verizon. See, Verizon is the only local service game around because they have a monopoly on the service in the area. Others have tried, Verizon has cheated, bought, and legislated them right out of the area.
So, I use Verizon for my Internet access. Apparently, I wasn't paying them enough on my local-only $21.00 a month plan for unlimited calling. So, they sent me a letter informing me of a "great new benefit!" The great new "benefit" was an extra $
Goodbye RIAA, hello independent labels! (Score:5, Informative)
Though I havent bought a cd in a while (ive just been listenening to classic rock on the radio), ive decided recently that its time for some new music. I bought a few cds off cdbaby.com and have been very pleased. The music rocks and the service rocks! I hope their prices and all else stays the same.
The crap that the RIAA is pushing these days isnt even worth my time.
now that you mention the RIAA.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA is simply transitioning... (Score:5, Funny)
[1] Intellectual Property Litigation.
Call me a cynic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Avoiding any and all responsibility for policing the content that travels over their connections is strongly in the best interest of any ISP. Having the longest history of operating a complex communications network, the telcos probably have the strongest understanding of that concept. In asking the telcos to report file sharing behavior, the RIAA is asking them to take a certain amount of responsibility for content that the telcos cannot control.
If the telcos acquiesced to the RIAA's request, one can only assume that they'd also have to police their corners of the internet for terrorism-related activity, porn, blasphemy, and all manner of content that sufficiently powerful organizations object to.
Not to mention... (Score:3, Interesting)
Kjella
Re:Call me a cynic. (Score:2)
Avoiding any and all responsibility for policing the content that travels over their connections is strongly in the best interest of any ISP
It may well be in their interests, but it _certainly_ is in mine. I love the idea that the telco is _not_ responsible for the content. The more that we have this kind of distinction the better our society becomes. It means that we can take their example an use it as a model for the next time someone declares that the content is the medium. Which is just absurd,
offshoring effect on manufacturing (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhh... no... the manufacturing crisis in the 80s, 90s and today are caused by offshore relocation not by file sharing. (the same malaise that is now affecting white collar jobs)
As an aside, does anyone know what will it take for the media to understand th
Re:offshoring effect on manufacturing (Score:2)
Why only the telcos? (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess people with Cable modems dont share files.
Re:Why only the telcos? (Score:2)
Time warner is a part of the RIAA (At least I'm pretty sure they are.) Time warner provides cable connections. Soooo they avoid suing cable users which would give cable a bad name. They can include "Download your favorite music online" in all their ads without worring about people saying "Hey didn't they sue like 100 people for using cable to download music, let's not get cable."
Anyway, that's just my little conspiracy theory, I could be wr
Call first? Same tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Filing the lawsuit itself changes very little--They are still using the threat of a big and costly lawsuit to extract a comparably insignificant but still sizable amount of money from people. That the RIAA did this (the call-first policy) in response to the Senate hearings is a riot. "No, Mr. Coleman, we aren't using our harsher-than-Patriot Act powers to intimidate people with bankrupcy-inducing lawsuits into settling for $3-4,000! We're calling them and threatening with the prospect of filing the lawsuit!" I don't really see how the RIAA calling and saying "We're gonna sue you unless you hand over $3,000" is any different from "We're gonna proceed with our suit unless you so hand over $3,000"
I mean, if every one of those sued file sharers challenged the RIAA, then it would quickly run out of resources. But since the lawsuits are cheaper to settle and unaffordable any other way, we have the prisoner's dilemma--everyone pleads guilty to the 3 year sentence in order to avoid the 20 year sentence, because nobody knows what their peers are going to do. I can't imagine the RIAA reasoned it any other way either.
Re:Call first? Same tactics (Score:2)
Doesn't that violate a SCO patent?
Re:Call first? Same tactics (Score:2)
Actually, the whole issue here is that they don't have to file a lawsuit to get the information. Scary, huh?
Motivations (Score:4, Insightful)
And the real reason SBC/Verizon are fighting the record companies is to protect the jobs of telco executives, not the rights of consumers.
Don't think that the telcos are acting on altruism. They'd screw you just as badly as the RIAA would, if they really felt it'd benefit them.
It's in their best interests to protect your privacy - just be glad that they are smart enough to realize that, and enjoy the little victory.
The RIAA is like an animal trapped in the corner - and just like one, it'll bite anything nearby out of fear. In this case, its busy biting the very hands that feed it.
Stand back, wait for it to calm down, and enjoy the ride.
RIAA Phone Payment (Score:4, Funny)
Cost? Think this through for a moment... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the RIAA starts cracking down on file sharers, the demand for lucrative broadband connections is going to be negatively affected. This is what will truly affect their revenue streams. Whether for good or for bad, at present legally tenuous trading is probably the biggest driver for fast internet connections.
I'd also like to think that it's due to the ISPs overwhelming desire to do the right thing and protect customer's privacy, but I'm having trouble reconciling this view completely with the generally held views of corporate entities and their desire to run profitably.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Re:Cost? Think this through for a moment... (Score:2)
Big corporations don't have morals of any sort -- good or bad. If you want a corporation to behave as if it wanted to do the right thing then design the system such that it is in the corporation's interest to do the right thing.
The Telcos ju
Verizon Couln't Comply If They Wanted To... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Verizon Couln't Comply If They Wanted To... (Score:2)
Re:Verizon Couln't Comply If They Wanted To... (Score:2)
I don't work for Verizon, but another carrier - and I can tell you that those systems you speak of are for troubleshooting or to satisfy CALEA and Title 3. They are labor intensive and not made for use on a large scale monitoring system.
Making those systems available to use at RIAAs whim would cost more money than you can believe - and make Verizon responsible for holding RIAAs dick from
Re:Verizon Couln't Comply If They Wanted To... (Score:2)
I agree 100% that ISPs should NOT do content inspection without warrants or for diagnosis of network problems.
Of course they do! (Score:3, Insightful)
The telcos are just profiting from other peoples creative works. Of course they don't want this to stop.
I think it's a liability thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
What next... they have to help turn-over people involved in other questionable activity done on the phone? ... people who called escort services just because some group wants those names? ...identify people martha stewart connected with just because they might have talked about imclone?
Yeah, they can do that, but the process involves a warant. Just just a request from an industry group.
If they have to start monitoring for questionable activity from any group that requests it, the next step might be for them to be responsible for illegal activity.
Re:I think it's a liability thing. (Score:2)
I don't know the ins and outs of how that works but I do recall that some ISPs were fighting to get common carrier status and lost.
Kazaa Lite: What's My Risk? (Score:3, Insightful)
Say I don't post files to share -- I just grab a few files now and then.
What's the risk? Will RIAA really find out?
Re:Kazaa Lite: What's My Risk? (Score:2, Informative)
Risk vs. Morals (Score:2)
But the karma has been worse lately. By going after the filesharers, the RIAA is generating bad karma between themselves and the filesharers.
Getting something for nothing that others have spent something to produce, may also generate bad karma. You can feel it by feeling a bad conscience. At first, the novelty made up for all that, but now when the copyright holders are ta
Re:Risk vs. Morals (Score:2)
They're doing a fine job of turning filesharers into the oppressed. Suing 12 year old girls and pensioners is generally not good for PR. Going after professional copyright infringers scores much better, but if they're not careful, they'll lose public trust totally, and the professionals will start getting acquitted by jurors.
No. (Score:2)
Re:Kazaa Lite: What's My Risk? (Score:2)
Patiot act can sure be expanded (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry, that can surely be fixed. However, not necessarily the way most people here would like it to be.
However... (Score:2)
Kjella
Extortion... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like extortion to me. Kinda like organized crime. Maybe it's time for some Piracy Insurance. In case you decide to pirate music, so you don't get your legs broken.
Brilliant! (Score:2)
In Japan (Score:2)
this is already commonplace. Every few days I get a spam on my cell phone saying "you owe us X yen for site usage fees, pay up within 24 hours or we will take legal action". There used to be a lot of people taken in by them, but these days almost nobody believes them anymore.
We care. (Score:2)
Hello, this is the Automated..... (Score:5, Funny)
To check your penalties amount, press 1.
To pay your penalties by credit card, press 2.
To pay your penalties by check, press 3.
To pay your penalties by organs, press 4.
To answer in court, translate "YOUAREDEAD" on your touch tone phone.
To speak with a suing lawyer, press 666.
To repeat the options again, say "I confess, I am guilty".
Otherwise, stay on the line and wait for an even bigger lawsuit
Re:Hello, this is the Automated..... (Score:2)
Now where have heard that before? (Score:2)
Scam Alert (Score:2, Informative)
Do not settle with anyone over the phone be very careful you will want to see documents.
What a W.A.S.T.E. (Score:3, Interesting)
As if the ISPs could even manage real-time content scanning on a reasonable sized pipe.
But seriously folks, the moment ISPs might actually start trying such an exercise -- after being dragged kicking and screaming into it -- does anyone doubt that every P2P would start employing public key strong encryption (e.g. AES) on file transfers?
Re:What a W.A.S.T.E. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's a waste that any communication short of non-persistent HTTP connections for public, non-incriminating data (e.g., images) is done witho
A Real RIAA Weak Point (Score:2)
Think about it. How do you know if your song is copyrighted, and by whom? Is there a database where you can query to determine if you are violating the copyright of any RIAA affiliated company? If so, I sure haven't heard about it. Have you?
Kind of like Comcast that says we'll cut you off if you use too much of our "unlimited" internet service, but we won't ever tell yo
Re:Article #1 text (Score:2, Funny)
I, for one, will start welcoming our telco overlords.
Re:Bullshit... (Score:5, Insightful)
How isn't the distribution system horribly out-of-date? The very concept of taking data, sticking it onto physical discs, putting those discs inside plastic wrappers, moving those discs via trucks, holding them inside stores, requiring the consumer to transport themselves several kilometres to buy the disc, then transport it home, simply so the customer can play music? That system makes sense for physical goods; not for pure data.
Internet distribution of music is modern, efficient and convenient. You can argue (though you didn't) that the current systems are broken because the artist isn't compensated, but I don't see how you could possibly argue that the physical distribution system is anything other than antiquated. It's a 100-year old distribution model that hasn't significantly changed despite several generations of telecommunication improvements.
Re:Bullshit... (Score:2)
It's legal, and people use it. I know there are methods of copying ringtones, but people don't. WHY? Because it's easier to download them, and they are cheap enough that people can't be bothered.
My point is (and partly yours), is that people are prepared to pay. Think about it - I know how to wire up networks, but I would rather pay someone and do something else.
Buying CDs is more
Re:RIAA pressed CDs in 1903? (Score:2)
Kinda like the flipside of when they made huge profits from overpricing CDs and reselling people material they already owned on vinyl at ridiculous prices.
I'm shedding no tears for the record companies.
Re:Bullshit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironic.
If you'd snail-mailed me this post it might have made sense. But using the very type of distribution system you claim doesn't exist to propogate your claim it doesn't exist ranks right up there with "This sentence is not in English." (The difference between this post and a music file is merely one of scale, and not much of it.)
As for people actually doing it, it's not my responsibility or anybody else'
Re:Bullshit... (Score:2)
It is their responsibility because they are making a claim with no facts to back it up.
Re:Bullshit... (Score:5, Interesting)
Professional recording equipment and expertise is cheaper now than every before in history. I can record an album in a studio for what I can save up on a minimum wage job. If I have some expertise myself I can do it myself at home for "free," at higher quality than even the pros could do it 20 years ago.
I can produce CD-Rs on my own or have CDs pressed for pennies apiece, including jewel case and inserts.
I have no need of a record company's money to finance my album.
As such I don't have to buy my own CDs back from them at full wholesale in order to distribute them as demos or for sales either. In fact, I don't have to distribute CDs as demos at all. Instead of spending $20k to mail out a few thousand demo CDs I can now upload many times that many for free direct to whomever I wish to hear them without the need of a go between.
I can make sure my website address is attached to those demos. At my website I have worldwide promotional capabilities, including making cuts available for free download as a promotional giveaway, and, of course, album sales.
Of course my website will be heavily promoting my live appearances as well, where I will be selling CDs for ten bucks and pocketing nine of that in profits.
On sales of no more than a few thousand CDs I make more profit than I would with half a million in sales with a Sony contract.
I grew up in a radio household (my dad was sales and marketing development manager for GE Broadcasting Corp.) and been a working musician for for three decades. Half of my friends have recorded, some of them for labels. Most of those that have recorded for a label now do so as private publishers.
This isn't "Pie in the Sky." It's the way many are already doing business, and it's already proven to work.
I can't imagine signing with a label. They have nothing to offer me that I can't provide for myself, at my own profit.
KFG
Re:Yeah right (Score:2)
Patience. The "RIAA" certainly won't sue but that does not guarentee that there will not be lawsuits yet filed as a direct result. It would be stupid but it might happen precisely because the RIAA is not fully in control.
I'm not claiming this is a certainty, I'd personally give it 60-40 against (which is a pretty weak opinion), but if it is going to happen it wouldn't have happene
Re:Distribution lies (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the whole point - you wouldn't be 'giving it away for free'. Stop and think for a moment. Does the method of distribution have any effect whatsoever on piracy? I would venture that the price of the good drives illegal copying.
As CDs are ridiculously overpriced, it is easy to see why they are pirated - as are certain overpriced operating systems with shoddy security. These items face large-scale piracy issues. The reason? The disparity between the price and the perceived value is so great that a normal person decides to break the law.
Once prices and the actual worth of the product come into closer agreement, the vast majority will opt to follow a legal path - probably out of a natural Machiavellian fear of authority. Refusing to come to grips with the actual value of a product, the industry is reinforcing a community belief that crime is appropriate here, when you're stealing from criminals. It's time to make a better fucking product, and earn money sans rabid lawyer hoard. (Are you listening, Darl?)
Re:Cost Cutting (Score:2)
Re:Cost Cutting (Score:2)
Yep, that's one of the costs they nail'em with if they ACTUALLLY make money on cd selling.
Re:Not So Bad (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem isn't "scumbag's" swapping copyrighted material. Well.. wait, yes it is. Quick! Without looking it up, tell me if Drowning Pool's "Tearing Away" can or cannot be legally traded. Never mind - go ahead and try looking it up, I'm sure you still can't tell me with any certainty. I honestly don't know either: I found a full-quality copy of it offered up as a mp3 sample from the album on a highly visible review on a commercial music site that's been around for awhile. Yet, the album says that co