Having worked in the music industry for over 20 years, I know a huge number of musicians. The vast majority lose money on their art. They'd be happy to make money, and might hope to do so, but they don't expect to. Most know very little about copyright law. They write and perform because they enjoy it.

I'm not saying it's good that there are starving artists. Some of the people I know are incredibly talented and should be making good money for their music, which would enable them to spend time making more music instead of working odd jobs. But don't think the current copyright laws are somehow necessary or even relevant to artists, especially future artists. For the most part, the laws were created by and for the owners of existing famous works, which are almost entirely large companies that do not create art themselves.

What stops you or your brother from telling them the truth?

19 U.S.C. 2242 : US Code - Section 2242: Identification of countries that deny adequate protection, or market access, for intellectual property rights.

Both the Request for Comment and the underlying law specifically refer to the identification of foreign countries with bad IP policies. So I still don't see how this opens the door for complaints about the U.S. Trade Representative's secrecy regarding ACTA. I don't want to discourage anyone from complaining -- certainly the Trade Representative should know that people are concerned about this -- but as I understand it, they have the right to disregard any comments not responsive to the request.

Am I missing something? I read the Federal Notice rather quickly, but I don't see anything about ACTA. They're looking for comments specifically for "Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974." Wouldn't they just disregard any comments that don't address what they've asked for? (To "identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.") I suppose one could submit a comment saying that the parties negotiating ACTA are denying adequate and effective protection (etc.) under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, but I don't know that this would have any effect on the ACTA negotiations.

Just wanted to say I'm troubled by the viciousness of the insults being hurled at these lawyers. First, no one can get through law school if they're an "idiot" or a "moron." Second, the fact that they were working pro bono is to be commended, and I'm sure it's not very encouraging for them to have their techniques be ripped to shreds by people who -- however closely they may have been following the case -- weren't in the courtroom and probably haven't studied the matter as closely as the people involved.

That said, I think the lawyers did make a mistake in taking on this case. There are some file sharing cases which should be defended as vigorously as possible, like where the RIAA is targeting the wrong person, or the file sharer has a plausible fair use claim. But here? It just sounds like the file-sharer is a greedy dumbass who knew what he was doing was wrong, did it anyway, and thought he'd somehow avoid getting in trouble. Tenenbaum is the idiot, not his lawyers.

Tell that to every doctor I'd ever seen in my life (being visibly malnourished, and complaining of symptoms associated with malnutrition), until I was 33 when my celiac was self-diagnosed and confirmed by testing. And to my cousin and grandfather (both on my mother's side of the family) who died of gastrointestinal cancers, both associated with undiagnosed celiac. And to my mother, sister, and another cousin who all have celiac which was undiagnosed until I brought this condition (so common I don't like to call it a "disease") to their attention.

In the U.S., it is standard medical practice to misdiagnose celiac, and most people have to self-diagnose in their 30's, 40's or 50's (keeping in mind that this is a genetic condition, and so present from birth). Or more likely, stay undiagnosed and die of a gastrointestinal cancer, or some other condition caused or worsened by malnutrition. Celiac affects 1 in 133 Americans, but only 1 in 5,000 is diagnosed.

Unless you're saying that 1 in 133 of your patients (or more, if you see many patients with gastrointestinal symptoms) has been diagnosed with celiac, then you have no business saying it's "not a difficult diagnosis."

Celiac disease is always my first thought when I hear of a somewhat geeky underweight person. Undiagnosed celiac is associated with Asperger syndrome. For more about this, see Unraveling the Mystery of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorder by Karyn Seroussi.