(This is a total waste of time, but what the hell, it's a slow day here at the skunk works.)

I don't see that this is anything new.

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has had a war with the internet ever since such things as Napster started appearing and file-sharing, particularly of copyrighted material, became popular. The movie industry also leaped in, but then their unhappiness goes all the way back to the development of VCRs and videotape and the ease of copying movies.

Once can certainly understand their concern. They stand a chance of losing a wad of money. Also, there is the ethical consideration of creative artists not getting royalties and residuals because of indiscriminate and uncontrolled copying and distribution of their work. The very recently developed YouTube is beginning to get some flak for the same reasons. Electronic books (downloading novels or other material from the internet) also has the publishing industry and many authors pretty upset for the same reasons—unless, of course, they are the ones who are doing it and charging for the downloads.

One would expect lawsuits about this. The RIAA may be acting like a five-hundred pound gorilla, but that's their job.

If one just happens to be one of those "unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids, all kinds of people who have no resources whatsoever to withstand these litigations" that Beckerman is talking about (a blatant and somewhat sleazy appeal to the emotions of the listeners) who just happened, at one time or another, to have downloaded copyrighted material from Napster or Kazaa, one should not be surprised if the RIAA comes looking for their pound of flesh. Beckerman claims that these song files are found on the computers of completely innocent people by some "secret process." That's pretty spooky all right. And just how does this "secret process" get through firewalls and other security measures that come pretty standard on most computers these days? Has anybody bought a computer within the past few years that didn't have a security suite pre-loaded?

Now, I'm quite sure that there are people in government, especially in the Bush administration, who are not happy with organizations like MoveOn and AlterNet Headlines and other organizations that distribute frequent e-newsletters and use the internet very heavily to disseminate their viewpoints. Nor are they happy with the fact that it's also possible for people to get their news and information from sources all over the world. But I don't think they are so stupid as to not realize that anything like trying to shut down the internet—EVEN IF IT WAS POSSIBLE—could turn around and bite them in the ass. If the incumbents suddenly become "out-cumbents," they will want to use every device available, such as the internet, to try to get back in again. Cheney may be as crooked as a dog's hind leg and as greedy as a shark, but he's not an idiot.

A couple of points:   

1. This is not a legal transcription as GUEST seems to be trying to imply. It is a transcription of a recorded telephone conversation.

2. The RIAA is not a government agency.

GUEST, you see problems everywhere, and even though I've asked you on a number of occasions for a reasonable plan of action against your various bugaboos, about all you can come up with is to accuse me (and others) of naivety or of being in denial (de-Nile is a river in Africa). The nearest thing you offer to a plan of action is "Man the barracades! Storm the castle with torches and pitchforks." Okay, so I load up the Smith & Wesson. Who do you want me to shoot first?

When you have one of your paranoid spasms and post stuff like this, I check out your sources. I used to be a newsman in broadcasting and I know how to check stuff. And springing from that news experience, I have a pretty efficient bullshit filter. When I check your sources, more often than not, the BS filter's needle slams hard against the peg.

Might I suggest that you seek professional help?

Don Firth