Ditto.

They keep suing their customers!! I will never buy music again for as long as it is possible (to not have to buy music). Sorry musicians, I will try to support you some other way. Besides, most art isn't about the money in the first place anyways.

I'm kind of sick of all these stupid plots by the US or other countries to undermine Wikileaks. Why can't they just pass off the site as being falsified information and ignore it the way they like to do with many other things that are controversial. By trying to quash the rumors and released documents with scheduled and repeated secretive attacks they are only making the dirty papers released look dirtier. They (the US Government that is) are only making our country look bad. Other countries don't hide what they are doing from the public eye, and when people say, "Hey!! What you are doing is WRONG!!" they just shrug their shoulders and say, "So?". But point one measly finger at the US and say the same thing and they come back with, "Shut up or we'll break all your F**kin fingers, murder your family, destroy your social life, and destroy your organization!!" Give it up US. Take a fu**ing chill pill. Relax. Shrug it off and move on with life. Sure some of the things you did were bad and horrible and the worst sh*t you could have possibly done, but no one is perfect, right?

Or, at least that is my take on things.

Whether or not she broke a law, 24 songs or 24,000 songs, doesn't matter. She should only be charged with her own legal fees.

I have a great problem with the RIAA so viciously attacking their customers with lawsuits as they have. So, they are going to go after the "little guy" who is caught with a couple albums worth of music and are gonna sue their socks off? That would be like getting an electric chair sentence for having possesion of 1/2 gram of marijuana. The legal system is majorly overstepping their bounds with this lawsuit.

I started downloading music because I couldn't afford to purchase full albums in the store or even purchase singles. I found it was also easier than having to wait a couple months before I was at the mall to get those songs that I wanted. Shortly after I began downloading music via P2P the lawsuits started popping up. The RIAA was initially trying to claim that Napster (and P2P in general) was making them lose money. Wow, sharing a few songs is affecting the music industry? I did some research, and found a graphic on the RIAA website which disproved their claim. The issue was not that Napster was stealing their profits, rather, they were simply releasing fewer albums into the marketplace which decreased their revenue. Shortly after I found that graphic, they pulled it off the site so that no one would be able to see it and they could continue their suits.

When I saw that their initial claims were a LIE I decided I would never again legally purchase music. Well, then came along iTunes and the ability to easily and fairly cheaply purchase high quality songs. I have purchased a few from iTunes.

But since the RIAA is still pushing these lawsuits through and punishing the small people, I WILL NEVER PURCHASE MUSIC LEGALLY FROM THE RIAA or an affiliate AGAIN if I can help it.

First I couldn't afford it, now I won't give those greedy rat bastards my money.

I am all for Copyright Law. I believe it is set up to protect the originator from other people maliciously profiting from original works, but to extend it to someone who is committing such a petty crime and trying to make them become worse than penniless is just ludicrous. Especially in this economy.

I am a fan of Wikileaks. I enjoy that they are exposing many injustices in the world such as in Iran after the elections, and the internet censorship lists from Australia. But, why are they only releasing US war documents? Can't they get ahold of documents from other countries involved in the wars? Why is is SO important to only smear the US and their efforts?

I think they are a great resource that can and is easily abused for the wrong purpose. Since they are supposedly an "open medium", posting secretive documents given to them not commonly accessible by the general public it is hard to regulate them. I think the regulation should come in the form of not only the US government being transparent about their plans (without affecting future plans), but other countries as well.

Lets "level" the playing field here.

Intelligent Design basically says that an intelligent designer (could be a god, could be many gods, aliens, ghosts, who knows?) has put together the world as we know it.

Creationism basically says that the God of the Bible Created everything we know of, out of nothing.

Evolution basically says that everything has changed over vast periods of time and suggests that there was a cosmic event ("The Big Bang") which started everything into motion.

So if a school board says they want to teach creationism, that is different from saying that they want to teach Intelligent Design.

Get your terms straight!

(The definition of terms are not quoted from any source, rather they are from my own simple understanding of each topic.)

Check out Steven C. Meyer in Focus on the Family's True U. He presents a very logical argument not only for creationism, but for the very existence of god.

I'm not sure what church you go to, but religion doesn't cure the rebellious human nature instilled in us by Adam's turning against God.

What?!! That is like saying we don't need the "Ten Commandments".

One reason I don't go to just ANY church. (newlifeinorlando.com)

This preacher doesn't just tell the congregation how to live, he tells the congregation how he lives.

For the record, I am not Southern Baptist, I am simply a sinful human who by God's grace and atonement am saved. This does not mean I am any less human or that I am flawless in any way. I am just the same if not worse than any of my fellow humans.

So, what you are saying is that, if they BELIEVE that a god Created everything we know of (Creationism) or if they BELIEVE that (Darwin's theory of) evolution, chance, and the big bang brought about everything we know of, that you are against it? So, no science in the classroom if the person teaching it believes what they are teaching?

That only applies to the US. In some countries if you see a girl on the street you want to have sex with and you ask and she agrees, it is legal for you to have sex with her, no matter what her age.

Americans and their "Christian values". That is why we are making regular normal people into criminals filling up our jails and causing our police forces to be so large. If the laws we have now were present in the time when Westerns were filmed, there would be a police force 10% of the population for each town rather than one Sheriff to keep the order (and the banks would still get robbed).

Setting an age limit for sexual relations is stupid, similar to the age limit with drinking, or smoking.

I think it is interesting how people think of CP as simply being a sexual act captured on a video or in pictures. That would be considered "hardcore" just as it is considered "hardcore" in the legal porn circles. Child Porn is essentially just any picture, video, drawing, or (in some cases) descriptive word, containing persons under the age of 18 in compromising situations, not necessarily sexual situations though. If the media is focusing on "private parts", or seductive imagery it can be called CP, but naked kids in a bathtub don't usually fit the criteria.

Child pornography is not necessarily child abuse. If it is "hardcore" it is, but when it is just suggestive imagery it is not.

Ever heard of Usenet, or darknet, or IRC Chat? I'm not real sure how things are presented in IRC Chat, or darknet, but I am quite familiar with Usenet. Which makes me wonder, why did the people in the article PAY for the CP which they downloaded? Are they just that ignorant that they know nothing about other "channels" for accessing their obsession? These are people who are high up in the "secret" organizations of the US and they don't know how to be secret about their dealings? Makes me fear for our country and its ability to actually have successful "secret" organizations.

Why would that be there only native environment if they have had millions of years to move to other parts of the world?

Haha, oh wait, thats not funny. If so, why only Africa though?

It just doesn't make any logical sense though. If there really are some sort of slightly evolved apes or monkeys or primates whatever you want to call them that were the previous edition of "modern day" humans, why aren't they still around? Why don't we find whole skeletons of these millions of years old humans/primates like we do the millions of years old other fossils? Why can't we teach ANY of the primates in the zoo to speak (not sign language either, out loud as most of us not at computers tend to communicate)?

I've seen the so called fossils, the skulls made out of fragments of bone, the pinky, toe, arm bones that someone thought would be the latest and greatest link. It just doesn't make logical sense. You complain about how the religious like to force feed you their doctrine and beliefs, but I am sick and tired of being fed the same nonsense coming from the "science" community about how we came from primates and how they are finding new evidence to prove their theories (oh, wait, I think they said it is fact, then why does it still need to be proved?) Stop looking for clues to bolster up your theory if it is fact!

Everyone has some sort of religion, whether it is something they visit weekly, or just something they think about and argue for on forums and in comments. Everyone has a religion. Not necessarily religion based on books, or gods, or something to worship, but something they base their beliefs and morals on, something that sets apart right and wrong for them, something that gives them a reason to live life and be a "good" person (or a "bad" person if they so choose). It may not have a name with an "ism" or "ity" at the end of it, but it is still something that the beliefs and morals are based on.

Funny how you say that religion is child abuse, I just find that funny.

Not world wide flood, world wide overflowing river. Get your facts straight. Oh wait, maybe it was a world wide tropical storm (wasn't there a movie about that?).