[Robotgroup] Off Topic, but Topical

[Def Egge]

At 11:21  2007-12-17, you wrote:
-=-=-=-=-= begin quoted message =-=-=-=-=-
 >From Ed Xavier @ ohlaser at swbell.net
 >
 >I got something in the mail today from my online subscription to 
NASA
 >TechBriefs and just about shot the monitor is disgust.  If anyone 
out
 >there listens to and thoroughly enjoys music as much as I do should 

 >take heed and read the rest of this note.  By the way, if you're
 >listening to music as you read this (as I am), be wary.  Someone 
may
 >be spying on you right now.
 >
 >Yet again, the RIAA is trying to control how I use and listen to my 

 >music, in spite of any justification I have regarding what I do 
with a
 >product that I legally purchase, after I carry it away from the 
retail
 >location.

[trimmed]


-=-=-=-=-= end quoted message =-=-=-=-=-

First, let me state my complete and utter revulsion at the mention of 
the acronym, RIAA.

That said, NASA Tech Briefs blog mischaracterizes the RIAA's case 
against the Howell's.  Look at the original filing 
(http://tinyurl.com/2vf8q4) linked from the following page:

http://tinyurl.com/24t98p

This appears to deal with the location of .mp3s in a shared (I read 
that to mean unsecured, public access) folder.  The RIAA (or their 
moles, rats, or representatives) searched and located shared 
(distributed) material to which someone other than the Howells holds 
distribution rights.

If you don't want it found, don't make it so easily accessible.  If 
you don't want it known, don't tell anyone.  If you don't want it 
read, use strong public-key encryption.  Taking the proper 
precautions may keep you from being the next test case (if it isn't 
obvious from reading the original filing, Cox Communications, "Your 
friend in the digital age," gave their information up to the RIAA).



-- 

All the best....

Mike