<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on RIAA "Untouchables"</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:58:03 EST</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Eric Olsen</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/11/141412.php#comment-36210</link>
<description>The LA Weekly is always going to take the &quot;alternative,&quot; anti-authoritarian slant, but I see a fundmental difference between sharing legitimately obtained ones-and-zeroes over the Internet for free, and the creation of illegitimate product for profit. As long as they don&#039;t break any laws, this seems like a reasonable thing for the RIAA to do.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">36210@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:58:03 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Craig Lyndall</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/11/141412.php#comment-36180</link>
<description>You are absolutely right.  To PROFIT from someone else&#039;s work is certainly a crime.  I don&#039;t really appreciate the tone that the RIAA are bad people for doing this.  You can make all the file sharers sympathetic figures if you like, but this is different and shouldn&#039;t be lumped in with all the other anti-RIAA rhetoric.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">36180@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:46:26 EST</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>