[steve-b]

But the situation is bigger now.

LOL! This is the excuse used for half of the leftists' subversions of the notion that the Constitution means what it says rather than what the leftists think it ought to say.

First Amendment? But the situation is bigger now -- we need to crack down on "hate speech" and "campaign finance abuses".

Second Amendment? But the situation is bigger now -- we need to get "Saturday Night Specials"* and "Assault Weapons"** off the streets.

*Definition: Any firearm less than twelve inches in length.
**Definition: Any firearm spanning one foot or more.

And it's nearly impossible to trace back.

Actually, in general it's quite trivial to trace back. The only obstacle is that the industry doesn't want to take the PR hit of targeting the individual violators.

And stuff your "duh" where the sun don't shine, you haven't presented a solution.

I haven't presented a solution that you like. That's too bad. There's ceiling to the amount of horsepower a car can be sold with in the US

Do I really have to explain the fallacy of using one unjustifiable policy to justify another unjustifiable policy?

you really don't need to do that any faster

That's the excuse used for the other half of the aforementioned leftist subversions (e.g. "Rich people don't really need all that money").

And since you're insult was based on a deliberate misstatement of my position yes indeed it is slander.

There is no misstatement. You and Sarah agree that law-abiding citizens should be prohibited from owning items because they might misuse them.

On the other side you can just follow a simple rule: never say anything on line that would get you popped in the face in person.

I've observed that people who prefer to blame inanimate objects tend to have poor impulse control. It's a convenient way of shifting blame, I suppose.

[discostu]

Do I really have to explain the difference to you?! The difference is that everything you outlined was legal to start with. Bootlegging is illegal, has been for a very long time.

No you haven't presented a solution. With thousands all over the country sticking MP3s on their work computer and sharing the directory just how is anybody supposed to stop them? When one person can toss a file on an internet site tracelessly (it's not that hard to dump your tracks on the net), how can they be stopped. Show a way we can keep the current definition of fair use and still stop the massive distributions of illegal MP3s.

I don't have poor impulse control. When somebody slanders you in public you should pop them in the face. The new vogue is to sue them, but I don't like the court system. Only take half a second to show some one the error of their ways the old fashioned way. Be curtious it's not that hard.