It's been a long time... but the second cd is better

It's been a while since anyone posted so I though I'd do the honours and post a legal tit-bit on Intranet Sharing... "A recent RIAA press release reports that an anonymous tip made them aware that a computer firm in Arizona was allowing file sharing of MP3 on their internal intranet. The company settled out of court for a cool million dollars. Few things cause me such conflict as file sharing. Certainly, I can't afford to write books if they show up on the Internet for free download (and yes, that has happened). But I also know that it is pointless to try and stop sharing networks like Gnutella. If you kill one, another one just pops up in its place. However, what's interesting about this case is that it involves a company intranet. If they had played CDs over a loudspeaker, would that have been vigorously pursued? True, that probably constitutes commercial use but I doubt that has ever been enforced except in public places (for example, restaurants or night clubs). Another thing I found interesting is the RIAA's choice of companies to pursue. I can't imagine they don't know about all the university computers where file sharing is rampant. But it might be more difficult to extract a million dollars from a school, I suppose. Not to mention all the pro bono law students that could go to court. Don't get me wrong. I understand that copyright protection is necessary and that it must be enforced. However, in this networked age it is just as clear that something will have to be worked out to accommodate both sides. Decades of laws hasn't curbed drug and alcohol consumption, prostitution, or gambling. Why we think it should stop file sharing is beyond me." No doubt I've breached something or other by posting this here but V