Rosemary isn't well.

Last night as I was surfing the Internet, my computer started to have
major slow downs, and then began to freeze. After a couple restarts,
Windows decided that my disks needed to be check for consistency: first it
checked C: and found no errors, then it crashed again, checked D: and found
a boatload of errors, and found errors on C: after rechecking that.
Then it just failed to load; I got a Blue Screen before the login page ever
came up. Both C: and D: reside on the same physical disk, which is actually
the older of two that I currently have (E: is it's own physical drive). I
put all of Windows on C: so that I can reinstall Windows without actually
losing real data.

All last night I tried to reinstall Windows and failed. The Installation
hung on copying over setup files several times, and then told me that it
couldn't reformat C: and that the disk may be damaged. So I resolved to buy
a new drive today, install Windows on that, and try and recover data from
the dieing drive. This morning I gave it a final try, reseated the drive's
cables, and Installation was able to successfully complete. (I'm a little
worried that maybe it was just a cable problem to begin with, except that
there's nothing that would have jostled the cables to begin with.)

Reinstalling Windows is a pain. Mostly it's the reinstalling of all my
programs (ZoneAlarm Firewall, Avast! Antivirus, wireless card, video card,
and games), but also just reorganizing my files -- My Documents won't be
recognized as such when I relogon to the 'new' Windows. A piece of me is
concerned that I may lose data, mostly I'm concerned for my photos and
music. I have no idea how (assuming it's not dieing on D:) to re-associate
my iTunes with my music. (I've used iTunes extensively, so about half of my
music is DRM'd Apple files as opposed to easy-to-manage mp3s...)

I'm taking it all a little hard -- I'm absurdly attached to my computer, and
seeing her hurt this way has me a bit heartbroken. She's my major
connection out to the rest of the world (most of my friends live in my
computer); thankfully, my iTouch (and work computer) esure that I'm not
totally cut off while I'm fixing her.

Anyways...

Well, that's encouraging.

So, I don't listen to the radio and I don't watch TV and while every once in
a while it becomes apparent that I'm not up to speed on the latest upcoming
movies or catchy ad jingle sometimes I'm afraid that maybe, maybe,
I'm missing actual content. This morning, though, I forgot my iTouch as I
was running out the door and was forced to listen to the radio. (I'll note
that in my entire 15-minute drive in I didn't hear a single song.) I was
pleased to find that the 'news' they were talking about was stuff I heard
about on the tubes last Friday.

For Purposes of Further Distribution, Public Performance, or Public Display.

For those who, unlike me, don't keep up with the chaotic comings and goings
of copyright cases, the name Jammie Thomas might not ring any bells. The
long and short of it is that she was, apparently, the first person found
guilty of copyright infringment based on the RIAA's "making available"
argument; that is, they argue that putting music files in a shared folder is
enough to qualify for copyright infringment. The interesting bit comes in
when the Judge notes, after the fact, that he may have made a terrible
mistake, since copyright never uses the term "making available" --
and, in fact, 'distribution' is only an example of a protected right, not a
right in and of itself.

The Register has an article up about it all, none of which is terribly
interesting except that they quote a pertinent piece of the copyright law:

"And for sound recordings, it defines "publication" as "offering to
distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of
further distribution, public performance, or public display"."

Emphasis mine. And I think that emphasis may be of particular interest
because file sharing isn't done for public purposes, but
private ones. I send a file to my friend so that he can listen to it, not
so that he can have a dance party with 100 of his closest friends. Which
only leaves the possibility of "purposes of further distribution." That is,
to me, it seems like the RIAA would have to prove that not only were you
distributing copies, but that you'd intended for those copies to be
further distributed. that's much more difficult, if not impossible,
to prove. And as the RIAA is already complaining that providing
proof of infringment is too hard, such a reading of the law very well might
kill the whole thing.

Is there anyone out there who knows more than I do who might weigh in on
this?

Troll taken to court

And on the heels of the New York Times article about Trolls, Jason Fortuny,
the Troll spokesman, has just
been sued by one of his victims. Now, 'victim' is kind of a strong
term, I think, but...