Re:The bigger picture, Mr. Beckerman? (Score 1)

If I understand correctly, your argument is that because you (a) paid money, (b) are physically capable, and (c) are not dismayed by penalties imposed on other people, you have a moral and ethical right to proceed as you will. But this is clearly broken reasoning: all the same elements appear in taking out a contract to have someone killed, and I sincerely hope that you do not believe this gives you a moral and ethical basis to kill someone.

You do not understand correctly. A correct understanding would be that because I paid money, and a sale took place, it is my property, not theirs. Metalica could not legally come in to my house and demand that I give them my Cd (if I owned a Metalica CD). Also Under current copyright law, the law is clear: to "distribute"(in a legal sense[required in cases like this to allege copyright infringement]) one has to do so for commercial gain. P2P networks are free. It is not a violation of copyright law to use them, even to download music or movies. The law is quite clear. District Judges have consistently ruled that this is so. Despite the music and film industry's theories that it is copyright infringement, this is not the law. It is quite clear that this is a matter for Congress to pass new legislation, not the courts. I would suggest reading the motion to quash submitted by defendant John Doe #3. It clearly lays this out.