Evidently, cancer can also be cured by inject people with a bullet. From the article, "As the bullet kills the patient, the cancer cells experiences death, but beyond that the side effects have been minimal."

Next time tech support tells you that they are America, ask them "What time is it?"

Then watch (listen to) them squirm.

I don't care where in the world tech support people are. I just need competent help. Give me competent help and you can live on the moon for all I care.

Give me an competent foreigner over a incompetent American any day of the week.

Everyone has certain rights (such as anonymity) until they commit a crime. Pirating music (whethey they're justified or not) is still a violation of copyrights. Why do ISPs have the right to refuse handing over the information when they can be considered criminals?

ISPs don't have the right to refuse to hand over subscriber information, as long as the copyright holder or its assignee begins a "John Doe" court proceeding in which the target of the suit is uniquely identified by their actions. The ISP is then handed a subpoena, as in any other civil case, that requests information that is important for the court's decision, such as information that can positively identify the John Doe. The ISP will legally have to comply with this subpoena by providing the subscriber information to the court.

However, the DMCA has a special provision, intended to speed copyright holders' takedowns of infringing material from web sites, which allows the rights holder to expedite the removal of such material by requiring the ISP to remove it within a short period of time of receiving the request and notifying the ISP client. The client can halt the takedown by formally claiming that the material does not infringe, thus leading them to some serious legal problems if they are not telling the truth. This section of law was not written in such a way that it is clear whether it applies equally to material that is stored on the computers of ISP clients rather than on ISP company web servers. (Remember, to anyone over forty, internet = web.) Thus the possibility for the current legal conflict.

So, why are the ISPs bothering to fight this? You are right that it is all about money, of course, but I seriously doubt that it's over the money that the ISPs could otherwise extort from copyright holders for this service. Try reading the sentences

"The music industry pays the RIAA to investigate and prosecute copyright infractions. They don't pay us a penny to do that. They don't pay ISPs a penny to do that. Even if they did, it would be a violation of due process and subscriber privacy."

as rhetorical, as in "I don't know why I, as a state warden, have to execute this mafia informant who happens to also be a murderer - the mafia doesn't pay my salary, and even if they did, it would be against my conscience as I don't believe in capital punishment." Instead, the money in question is what the ISPs would lose if they were seen by their customers as ready to interfere in this way with client use of the leased bandwidth, or more likely, the money that it would cost to even try to police copyright infringements that occurred through internet services and were stored on client hard drives. If you don't think it's really that much of a big deal, I'll illegally email you a song to prove the point.

A more interesting question, though, is why doesn't the RIAA just follow the standard process and obtain a John Doe subpoena? They must have the evidence to do this. One possibility is that they would rather set a precedent that they can request takedowns of infringing material stored on client hard drives using the easy, no-fuss method as they read Congress as having intended it. Note that this is what they claim as their motive.

However, this rationale doesn't hold very much water, since it makes no sense for the RIAA to try to file a lawsuit against any significant number of file traders in an effort to eradicate infringement. The whole strategy must revolve around suing a small subset of file traders in an effort to remove those nodes which offer the largest set of files and to scare off all of the rest, in effect "firing into the crowd". It would simply be too expensive to police infringement by catching all copyright violators - that's more than half of American teenagers, and even an expedited discovery process is not going to make that cost effective. In the case of a small number of lawsuits, whether the discovery is expedited or not makes little difference and is not worth fighting over, except on principle (which the notoriously mercenary RIAA asserts as a secondary motive, of course.)

A moment of thought indicates that a much more likely reason to wish for the expedited process in this case is so that the RIAA can see who the defendant will be before they actually launch an infringement lawsuit. With the so-called turbocharged subpoena process, the RIAA can make a blanket call for the identity of one hundred infringers, investigate each person on the list, and choose the one who's a baby-beating homeless crack-ho terrorist hacker to hit with a lawsuit. As noted above, with the demographic reality of copyright infringement, they really don't want to follow standard practice and blindly file a John Doe lawsuit - heavens, that person could be the eleven-year-old granddaughter of one of the RIAA executives, or Jenna Bush. Knowing what you're getting into before making public legal filings that could be very embarrassing later is almost mandatory in this situation, and you can expect the copyright holders' organisations to press for this power as strongly as they can.

A final comment: the civil liberties organisations are not in it for the money.

"On the face of it, Microsoft complaining about the source license used by Linux is like the event horizon calling the kettle black." - Adam Barr, former Microsoft employee