I agree with you. They're not only creating jobs, they're creating jobs for stupid people, which is the hardest kind of job to create.

If his doctor told him to start jogging would the government buy him new Nikes?

Man with hammer sees nail.

IANAL, and you are, but it seems to me that there are two issues here.

What is a reasonable estimation of damages?
Does the statutory damage award have to bear some resemblance to the damages.

Gore and Campbell appear to only address the second question. The first is still very open. I don't think either side is arguing that correctly. To me $21 is just as wrong as $675000(though possibly less damaging to society). The real answer lies somewhere in between, but both lawyers are arguing the interpretation most beneficial to them(probably cause that's their jobs). In my mind the judge should put damages at some estimated seeding ratio * number of songs * punitive multiplier. I think 10*21*3=$630 would be about right. That's enough to be a deterrent to most, but not enough to ruin someones life for a trivial offense.

Google "capitalism" sometime. Its amazing the things people will create to try and make money.

And what if the domain name you wanted wasn't actually available?

I'm particularly not crazy about stem cells being cultivated, and possibly embryos destroyed, for frivolous treatments.

I'm not particularly crazy about you not realizing that this has nothing to do with embryos even though the article summary(not even the article itself), mentions twice that the stem cells don't come from embryos.

First off, not only did you not RTFA, but you couldn't even read the headline. The whole point of the article is that AT&T is *NOT* going to turn off your service without a court order.

As far as them being jerks for sending you a letter, I would think you'd like the heads up that whatever you're doing(legal or not) is drawing the attention of the RIAA. This is about the best policy one could hope for from an ISP.