I can't stand the RIAA but it's not at all hard to see why the Christian Coalition and other personal responsibility groups are backing them on file-sharing. They consider it stealing, and I can vouch as a regular file-sharer (don't sue me, RIAA!) that there is very little on these networks that is not under copyright. There are other ways to share non-copyright material online - a new application called Grouper (www.grouper.com) lets users create private networks with which to share their own files with their friends, emphasis on "share" (e.g., only MP3 streaming, not downloading). I have no love for the RIAA's tactics and anticompetitive goals, but stop treating Christian groups as if they're suddenly abandoning their principles. There is really no comparison between the danger of pedophilia from blogging and the danger of copyright violation from file-sharing, as currently structured. Guns are designed for self-defense and sport and the vast majority are not used for criminal purposes. File-sharing networks - let me emphasize again, as currently structured - are heavily dominated by copyright-infringing activities, I would guess 90 percent at the lowest. A bit of regulation could cut that number substantially. I don't think it will help the music or film industries in the least, but it would cut piracy.

Surely you don't expect these right-wing champions of personal freedom and responsibility to pass on an opportunity to deny the rights that they deem inappropriate? Seems to me that this is a common thread spanning both sides of the political spectrum: all rights are important as long as they fit my ideology. If only irony were equally recognized.

The problem, Greg, is that different people/groups have differing views of what constitutes "piracy". Let's construct a continuum here: On one end would be very strict definition: Piracy only exists if you take the song and use it for your actual profit. On the other end, let's put The RIAA's definition: if you didn't buy the music, at their price, from an outlet that they control, it's piracy.

Now let's add the litmus test of reality. The Court is going to do that anyway. Reality means that the music you possess is a perfect recording, since the music that the RIAA sells is perfect. So, if you ripped a track and you have a few gaps in the stream, the song is worthless by the RIAA's own standards - they couldn't sell that.

Next, has the RIAA or a member artist or company ever given that music away? Have they passed out any free discs at conventions or some other venue to try to raise business? If so, the value of their property is in question, since it is a principle of law that if an item is free, it has no value (or very small value).

Next, has the song ever been played over the air on an FM station? If so, they gave it away, since recording off of the airwaves is already ruled to be perfectly legal in all aspects.

Finally, when the RIAA comes knocking at your door with a subpoena or search warrant, and takes your computer away for evidence, and comes up in court with the list of music thereupon, do you not have the right to be judged in court upon the value of each of those songs, as measured by the actual standards of value I listed above?

No, the RIAA and all their surrogates have some severe problems. They rushed this sue-everyone tactic into being without looking at it's viability in court. The news was full of stories about people settling these lawsuits, but of all of them that have been contested, how many has the RIAA actually won?

Films or DVDs are a different case, as that medium is never given away in any form but snippets.

You quote the defense to your accusation, viz.,:

"proliferation of anonymous, decentralized, unfiltered and untraceable peer-to-peer networks that facilitate crimes against children and that frustrate law enforcement efforts to detect and investigate these crimes."

Now, instead of "opposing personal responsibility" there are upset about the possibility of anonymity removing personal responsibility. For example, I would imagine they're concerned about the exchange of child pornography where the culprits on both ends are unidentifiable.

You might argue that the benefits of anonymity (for example, exchanging banned democratic pamphlets in communist china) outweight the costs. But you shouldn't question their motives. They seem to me to be very consistent.

You also underestimate the enormity of the Christian music industry. Christian music and film (consider the "Left Behind" series) are very big business (actually, some of the main Christian recording companies are owned by secular parent corps like EMI - EMI indirectly owns the copyright on many songs in my church's songbook). And lots of Christian high school kids download pirated Christian music. It's not that surprising of a coalition.

Also, you have to think about these Christian nonprofits from the ground up - start with the constituents, not the agenda of the leaders. Nothing gets the cash flowing like an appeal to do something about pedophiles and sexual predators. And not only do these groups WANT to champion that cause in order to garner support, but they are under pressure from their constituent base to do something to "clean up the Internet." This may not be the best way to do it, but their next newsletter can say, "We filed briefs in an important court case about giving law enforcement greater ability to track child porn on the Internet." Which is sort of true, I guess.

I know this will probably infuriate people who already hate the Christian Coalition just for who they are, but I think these organizations are misunderstood by the Left; these nonprofits are not your normal ideological propaganda machine. I think they are super sensitive to the concerns of their constituents.

I agree that there are extreme positions at work against one another here, and that we need to define some moderate and reasonable alternatives before we can beging to resolve this situation. Greg Piper mentioned Grouper, which I agree is an example of a middle ground where file sharing takes place within private groups on a scale that is less threatening while still enabling the use of P2P technology.

The tragedy of the commons is that when people are given open and free access to resources, they will tend to abuse that access. It must be human nature since we've demonstrated that tendency since time immemorial. One way to moderate such behavior is to share resources in mutually responsible groups rather than as unregulated mobs.

As a Grouper user, I am a member of several groups with a total of under 100 users, and have the ability to stream more music than I could ever listen to. Maybe the RIAA would still bust us, but we represent a threat more on the scale described above where people have been recording tracks from the radio for decades without upsetting the publishers.