I know! I want my own IP. Hell, I want my own ISP. Maybe someday when I have enough dough to foot the 10 grand a month bill. LOL.

I hope you enjoy your internet break. I taught myself to be able to disengage from the Internet for days at a time. People in university didn't understand how I could not answer their emails for days at a time. I replied, "It's easy if you remember that you survived childhood without a smartphone or a laptop." Though I suppose many people my brother's age were using computers by age 5, whereas the only reason I used one from the age of 4 was because Dad was one of the few people who own an IBM and a dot-matrix printer at the time. Oh, the days of Sopwith, Eggbert, and eventually Carmen Santiago in the U.S.A!

I am sorry someone raped you and glad you are strong enough to move on. I wasn\'t trying to play oppression olympics - I operate on the assumption that most women have either been assaulted or harassed or stalked or attacked, so I didn\'t assume you used the metaphor without regard. You seemed to use it with a clear choice, just one I wouldn\'t have made at the time. (JFYI - I use \'rape survivor\' as a term in opposition to \'victim.\' It really doesn\'t define who I am. If it did, the adult rape and assaults would have triggered some kind of PTSD feedback loop from the childhood one, and then I would never leave my room, and that lets them win.)

The three strikes thing really bothers me both legally and morally. Not that I think the U.S. is going to go that far within the next year or so, but I share an IP address with family because I have a disability and can\'t live on my own. I pretty much depend on it for work. I don\'t think I\'m responsible for my collegiate brother\'s behavior (I assume he\'s downloaded games). The second our ISP pulls our service because of some draconian law, I\'ll have the ACLU on the phone. But yeah, YMMV.

Hey, it\'s okay. I knew what you were trying to say! I\'m positive I know what you think now, since I read your blog and the same other blogs as well. :) No need to apologize.

Yeah, that is a great trailer! That's what I mean by professional. Honestly, how many writers have that kind of time or talent? I want to make a slide show, I'll submit a flash add to an ad network. LOL

Sorry this is such a delayed reply, Zoe! I figured I owed you a response, and since you've just posted twice about this topic on your own blog...feel free not to reply and all that, because in principle, my view isn't that immutable or in dire opposition here.

I want the laws to change. Until they do, I think the punishment should fit the crime. But what does that actually mean?

The problem is that with torrents, EVERYONE is an uploader and EVERYONE is a downloader. The first and main use of torrents was to legally distribute transformative performance art, in this case, podcasts and radioplays, for my production company. That was how we advertised and how our shows became really popular. There are seeders (people who have the complete file and are only "uploading" to other users) and leechers (people only downloading from other people and not sharing at all). Unless you are a leecher, you are an uploader, and most users ban leechers from sharing with them fairly quickly, so it's very difficult to download large file collections without also uploading. With file locker type sites, the issue of uploaders vs. downloaders is more clear-cut.

So no, I don't think that all uploaders are created equal, especially when it's difficult to find the original seeder who is probably safely ensconced behind several proxies and outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Nor do I think making an example out of people like Jammie Thomas by fining them hundreds of thousands of dollars per song and bankrupting them for life is either useful, fair, or just. But copyright enforcers and their lawyers will try to sue for the maximum amounts under the law, so supporting laws that fine people and letting those decisions pass without legal challenges means that the RIAA and the MPAA are, in the end, creating policies by setting precedents that will be enforced in future cases in the same ways.

I wish there were some way to seize digital property without a massive invasion of privacy, like scanning software or something that could narrow down information to potentially infringing files for a human to sort through, thereby allowing seizure of illegal goods without having a technician pawing through your legal porn collection or love letters or trade secrets or something. I would only support that in the event of multiple violations in excess of a large amount of money and after several prior warnings.

Thanks, Stacey. When I publish something under this name (I currently publish non-fiction under a different name), I will be sure to let you know! :D