what do you think?

i think the register is substantially more reliable than the new york post!

check your domestic sources instead, if i was you.

If it's worth a read, it's worth a link! How about it, Andrew?

Sorry about that stupidsexyflowers -the link is now added!

I have downloaded noise files and such before - but a minor annoyance, at best. This type of thing (if true) just goes again to show how the RIAA and such groups do not understand the concept of file sharing nor even the most basic technology and concepts behind p2p networks. If a noise file makes its way into the queue, it soon ends up in users' trash cans. It will not spread like a plague through the network - since the vast majority of people work with downloaded files - adjusting sound, normalization, fixing tags, etc. And most like myself can't wait and usually listen to new files within a day of getting them. Since shared files are the "improved" ones (or indeed from the same directory as your downloads) very few of these placebos would slip back into the network and, what? Annoy users so they go pay $20 for every CD? Nah...
Wow, if they put as much effort into filling the networks with "guaranteed good" files, instead - and included metadata suggesting a donation of some small amount to a royalty fund (for instance), they could be making money from files instead of losing it.

Ah, but it's not about getting paid, Six, it's about _forcing_ people to pay! People paying because they like you don't count.

I wonder if that's because the people who end up heading organizations like RIAA and MPAA (i.e., people in the entertainment industry who haven't actually entertained anyone) don't really like anyone, and assume that no one likes them, and think that's the norm? So they don't believe that anyone else would voluntarily pay, because they wouldn't?