[Pony99CA]

Originally Posted by Gerard

Rationalization has nothing to do with my arguments. Of course this comment may not be directly related to mine... but the way you've been somewhat structured in your multiple responses, keeping them quite separate, makes it seem as though it is.

It wasn't directed at you (I knew about your instrument repair, et al). Stating my philosophy about P2P just seemed to fit in there.

Originally Posted by Gerard

As for your specific admonition - that putting your intentions in writing somehow makes you vulnerable... no. Did I say, for instance, that when sending a postal money order (the financial instrument mentioned, if you recall) that people should include their actual name or actual location? A postal money order is unique in that it a) can be purchased with cash, without presenting identification, and so cannot be traced to the sender, and b) is 'as good as' cash at any financial institution.

Actually, it's not as good as cash, as I found out when I moved to California. I had cashed in my bank account in Michigan and gotten a money order. When I went to open an account at a bank in Silicon Valley, I was told there would be a hold on my money because money orders can have stop payment orders placed on them, just like checks.

Originally Posted by Gerard

Further, one can use anonymous means in writing and sending the note to go with the money order, explaining the reason for the payment and even the specific album in question, without getting the RIAA any closer to the sender than the city of origin. Barring fingerprinting or other forensic evidence, which it's highly unlikely the RIAA is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per case pursuing, there's just no way this is admissible in any court.

There's DNA off of the envelope, of course. And don't be fooled by thinking the RIAA won't spend thousands of dollars pursuing somebody. How much do you think they pay lawyers to gather evidence or companies to track the IP addresses of uploaders? Legal and technical fees aren't cheap.

Originally Posted by Gerard

If I am paying for an album, I want to listen to that album, on my terms. What business is it of the publishers to choose on what device or at what level of quality I do so?

What business is it of theirs? I think that's obvious given that they're in the business of selling music. Why wouldn't they want to charge you for other formats or better quality? They're a business, not a philanthropic organization.

And of course you want to use the music on your terms. Who doesn't want to use everything on their own terms? However, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have the legal right to. (With music from CDs, which isn't encrypted, I think the legal precedent says that you do. However, with DVDs and DRM-protected songs, which are encrypted, the DMCA says that you don't -- at least in the U.S., which I know doesn't apply to you.)

Originally Posted by Gerard

So the RIAA can bite me. I neither steal their stuff nor promote such activities. I am merely advocating for pushing them to wake up and treat their customers with some respect.

I think you misunderstand who the RIAA's "customers" are. Their customers are the music publishers, not the music purchasers. I suspect their true customers do get treated with respect.

FYI, I think the RIAA is a bunch of bullies, too, but the law gives the copyright owners that ability. Until we get more user-friendly copyright laws, that's what we're stuck with. The correct way to fight it is by passing new laws, not stealing music and rationalizing it away (again, that part does not apply to you).

Steve