Here's an alternate viewpoint to the claims of the RIAA, well researched and with a thoughtfully concieved alternate solution. Not all of the RIAA's own members support what they are doing. If you read this, read the follow-up too, it's very interesting. http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

Something to remember in this debate is not only the fair-use issues or the supression of beneficial technology, but privacy and individual rights.  US culture has had a 225 year history of protecting an individual's right to privacy. A man's home was his castle and no one had a right to violate his privacy without the courts declaring it was ok. Only law enforcement was allowed to appeal to the courts for a search warrant to invade your privacy.

Do we want industry, private corporate interests, to have the right to examine our personal data, remotely destroy our personal computers or maintain a database of our personal activities?  This is an issue that goes way beyond file-sharing but this is certainly relevant to this debate.

The RIAA claims their actions are necessary because they are losing millions of dollars to file sharing. There is no independant study to verify this, only their own reports. Shouldn't they be the ones being forced to prove their claims before such draconian measures as imprisoning and financially destroying thousands of people is resorted to? I believe their loss of sales is because of many factors all of which are their own doing. I don't believe any of their loss of sales is because of file sharing. If anything, I believe they shot themselves in the foot with the Napster trials. I stopped buying any US CD's and I'm sure there are thousands of people who feel the same way.

When record stores started making listening booths available to preview music the RIAA fought it, tried to make it illegal.

When VCR's became widely available to the public the movie industry tried to have the technology banned.

When movies were first rented to people with vcr's the movie industry fought it all the way to the supreme court.

They don't have the foresight to embrace new distribution technologies. They don't have the creative vision to move with the inevitable progress of technology into the future.

Companies should not be allowed to interfere with beneficial technology, advances that could provide a benefit for all mankind, to protect their own profits. They should have to adapt, as everyone else does. I supposs some of you feel it would be ok to prevent new non-polluting energy systems to be supressed because it would have a negative impact on some oil companies' profits. And it's ok to research and produce biological weapons because stopping the production of these horrible germs "would have a negative impact on the bottom line of several American companies" (quote GWBush).

What's our future to be? One that benefits mankind or one that benefits only rich executives?