Everyone that is surprised that an entity that facilitates illegal file sharing is being picked on.  Ok, all of you that raised your hands… you’re idiots.  Don’t breed.

Since Napster took a dirt nap, everyone that was awake understood that any system that had a hub that could be targeted…. would be targeted.

The only system that has a hope of success is a system that doesn’t have a heart.  A network that encypts the data and utilizes blind proxies to connect between each other would solve the issue of ISP’s blocking traffic due to connection destination and data or connection type(Comcast, anyone?).

This of course still leaves the issue of a method of network awareness to be resolved.  You need a method of connecting users however, it either has to be hubless or has to utilize a system that isn’t aware of who it’s connecting.  That seems to be the sticking point for current p2p systems.

I don’t use p2p for any reason so I don’t have any incentive to make a change, but I can’t help but find TPB’s lackadaisical approach to file sharing to be folly.  Unless, of course, their intention was to do some time in prison.  Then it makes complete sense. They’ve tried every scheme to try to get out from under copyright law, including the purchase of a micronation.

It’s completely irrelevant if the harassment against them is legal or not.  It’s happening.  Further, it was completely predictable. To cap it off, a lot of us could have won some money were we allowed to bet that it would be successful(ending in prison sentences for some).

If I were to give them any advice, it would be this:

Never pick up the soap.  If you drop it, just let it go, man.

vexatious: vex·a·tious

Pronunciation: \-shəs\
Function: adjective
Date: 1534

1    a: causing vexation : distressing <vexatious delays>
b: intended to harass <a vexatious lawsuit>
2: full of disorder or stress : troubled <a vexatious period in her life>
- vex·a·tious·ly adverb
- vex·a·tious·ness noun

Are we clear on the definition of vexatious?  I’m hoping so, otherwise you won’t know why everyone is laughing so hard.

RIAA Decries Attorney-Blogger as ‘Vexatious’ Litigator

The entity that has sued dead people, pets, infants and those that have never owned a computer are calling Ray Beckerman vexatious because he keeps a blog of his lawsuits involving the RIAA. They feel that the exposure is hurting their public image.

It’s not the 30,000 people they have sued.  It’s Ray’s blog.

What’s he referencing? One of those dastardly, crooked cap wearing, pants-drooping music thieves with thousands of downloads under their belt, I bet.

Almost.

He is referencing a case the RIAA had to drop against one Tanya Andersen, a 45 year old single mother, subsisting on disability. They sent the dogs after her for sharing thousands of files. They continued their pursuit when their own expert found her computer to be free of any proof of pirating media. They continued after the RIAA itself found out the nick they attributed to her actually belonged to another person that was bragging online about stealing music. Only after Anderson’s attorney found this information did they offer to drop the suit… providing she agreed not to file a counter claim.

Reading the information in released documents, you come to realize how despicable the RIAA actually is and to what depths it will stoop. The RIAA however, sees it a little differently. Mr. Gabriel states that they didn’t drop the suit because they couldn’t prove their case. The nick they falsely attributed to Ms. Anderson? He states that the user name might have been inspired by Kylee, since she admitted she liked Dragon Ball Z, a Japanese anime TV series that has a character with a similar name.

And how did he intend to prove that she actually downloaded the music that they accused her of stealing? He stated that Andersen admitted that she knew or listened to some of the artists whose songs were offered for download.

“We could have pursued the case until the end of time.”

This man would like you to buy some of his client’s music.

You’ll remember that Metallica was one of the main proponents in the initial lawsuits that brought down Napster. Now, they’d like you to know that it was never about downloading music.  They just, you know…. didn’t want you to do it then.  Now it’s ok of course, because Trent Reznor made an assload of cash doing it.

What really happened is this:  Metallica got caught hugging an antiquated music distribution system.  When the fear of sales dropping touched their wallets, they lashed out.  Over the years, they’ve held their stance, because nobody else broke the mold.  Now that bands like Radiohead, Trent Reznor and others have proven that you can sell a lot of music this way, they’re willing to try it.  Oh, and hey, let’s just forget about that whole “attack our fans” phase we went through.

Hey, who am I to judge?  I’ll download their new album…. If they offer it for free.

Hey, I’m no pirate.