Couple sues hospital for keeping sick baby alive

A Quebec couple is launching a lawsuit against Montreal Children's Hospital after their severely-ill newborn daughter was put back on life support without their consent.

In November 2007, Marie-Eve Laurendeau gave birth to Phebe Mantha at LaSalle Hospital.



Due to complications at birth, Phebe was transferred to Montreal Children's Hospital in critical condition and kept on life support.

Laurendeau and Phebe's father, Stephane Mantha, say doctors told them at that time that their daughter had little chance she'd survive.

If she did survive, doctors said she would probably be deaf, blind and may need to be institutionalized.

The couple was given the option to withdraw Phebe's life support and to withdraw artificial feeding.

They said they agreed to withdraw respiratory support and later, at the suggestion of doctors, to withdraw the artificial feeding.

"They say they thought that if there was never going to be quality of life for their baby girl then why let her suffer," CTV Montreal's Daniele Hamamdjian reported Friday after the parents held a press conference.

However, the hospital's ethics committee met and reversed the parent's decision without their consent or permission from a court.

After two-and-a-half months, Phebe was still alive and the hospital told the parents to take their child home or they'd place her in protective custody, Hamamdjian said.

Now, 15 months later, Laurendeau has been forced to quit her job to take care of Phebe full time.

Phebe is neither deaf nor blind. But she cannot hold up her head, sit up, or babble as another baby her age would, and she is fed through a hole in her stomach.

She does smile at her parents, though, a recent breakthrough they are thrilled with, CTV's Genevieve Beauchemin reported.

"They say they have no support and are living on one income," Hamamdjian said.

The couple's lawyer says the hospital violated Quebec law and that only the court should have the power to overrule the couple's decision.

A spokesperson for Montreal Children's Hospital refused to comment saying the matter was before the courts.

Apple gets sued over iPhone screen technology

Two related companies are suing Apple over screen rendering technology used in the iPhone and iPod Touch, according to reports.

Picsel Technologies and Picsel Research, based in Glasgow, Scotland, filed a patent-infringement lawsuit Friday in U.S. District Court in Delaware, Dow Jones reported. The suit alleges that Apple is violating a Picsel technology that accelerates the process of updating a device's display.

According to Macworld, the suit is focused on Picsel technology that people use to zoom and pan documents, sites, and images. Apple's devices wouldn't function as fluidly without the technology, alleges Picsel, which wants compensation for devices already sold.

Picsel's site says its customers include Motorola, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Palm, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, and Sharp. According to Dow Jones, Apple declined to comment.

Citigroup sues pawnshop over logo

All Citi Pawn shop in Brooklyn, New York is accused of violating bank's trademark. Citigroup seeks ALL the pawnshop's profits.

You would think that Citigroup had enough on its plate these days, but that hasn't stopped the financial behemoth from filing a copyright infringement suit against a Brooklyn, New York, pawnshop over a similar logo.

In the suit filed last week in Brooklyn federal court, Citigroup alleges that in using the same Citi abbreviation and red arc as its banking subsidiary, Citibank, All Citi Pawn has infringed on their trademark. Citigroup is seeking all of the business' profits since it adopted the All Citi name.

"What can I tell you? Its crazy. They're going wild for a little art that I put up. Theirs is a moon shape, mine is a V-shape, but I've already taken it down," pawn shop manager Bob Kay said.

"This is a joke, right?" said the manager. "It makes no sense. They're a bank. I'm a pawnshop. They make more in one day than I do all year."

Kay said he had agreed to remove the arc over the "t" and believed that resolved the suit.

When contacted, Citigroup would say only that "as a matter of course, we work to protect the value of our trademarks."

According to trademark attorney Michael Feigin, no matter how small an infraction this may seem, in order to keep a trademark, it has to be protected.

"It is important for Citigroup to know that no one is trading off their name - they need to protect their intellectual property." Feigin went on to say, however, that removing the offending logo should resolve the case. According to Kay, it has not.

Freed Gitmo prisoner sues U.S. for unlawful detention

Saad Muhammad Iqbal is a finally a free man, After having served more than six years at the U.S. military's detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- without any charge.

Now, Iqbal is suing the U.S. government for unlawful detention.

"I am angry in my heart," Iqbal said in a recent interview. "It's easy for the U.S. government to say, 'There are no charges found and he's free.'

"But who will be responsible for seven years of my life?"

His attorney in Washington, D.C., is suing the U.S. government, on behalf of Iqbal, through the federal court system.

It is not the first lawsuit brought against the U.S. government by a former Guantanamo detainee. But it comes as President Barack Obama takes office, promising to shut down the detention facility, possibly as early as within a year.

That could lead to an increase in the number of lawsuits brought by former detainees who -- like Iqbal -- say they were held for no reason. A former Gitmo detainee talks about his experiences »(Video)

The Pakistani citizen was taken into U.S. custody in January 2002 while visiting family in Indonesia. He was reportedly arrested after allegedly talking about making a shoe bomb, something he denies.

"I never (made) that statement," Iqbal said. "But they have (said) a lot of things, like I went to Afghanistan, but they have no proof."

Iqbal says while in U.S. custody, he was taken to Egypt, then to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. In March 2003, he arrived at Guantanamo's military prison, which became a lightning rod for critics who charged that the Bush administration had used torture on terror detainees.

Iqbal accuses his handlers in Guantanamo of beating him during his six-month hunger strike, and withholding medical treatment until he agreed to cooperate.

"Even when they take me to hospital, I can't even walk but they put me in 4 by 4 (cell), my hands tied with handcuffs and my legs also had leg shackles," he said.

The CIA the Pentagon have repeatedly denied allegations of mistreatment and torture, saying all interrogation was lawfully done. In response to Iqbal's allegations, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano told the New York Times earlier this month, "I have no idea what he's talking about."

Six months after he was admitted to Guantanamo, Iqbal said he tried to kill himself. While no one watched, Iqbal said he and several prison mates tried to hang themselves with bed sheets.

Four of the prisoners died, according to Iqbal. But his survival continued what he calls "the theft of his freedom" by the U.S. government.

President George W. Bush and other senior officials have repeatedly denied that the U.S. government had used torture to extract intelligence from terror suspects.

Days after assuming office, President Obama plans to issue three executive orders Thursday that will show a clean break from the Bush administration on the war on terror, including one ordering the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay be closed within a year, according to a senior administration official and a congressional aide.

A second executive order will formally ban torture by requiring the Army field manual be used as the guide for terror interrogations, essentially ending the Bush administration's CIA program of enhanced interrogation methods.

A third executive order, according to the officials, will order a systematic review of detention policies and procedures and a review of all individual cases.

Iqbal was among nearly 800 inmates who came through Guantanamo Bay, classified by Washington as suspected terrorists. Most were never charged with a crime.

With the help of a U.S.-based lawyer, Iqbal was released in September without ever being charged. He returned to Pakistan, walking with the help of a cane, complaining of back pain, a bad leg, and a torn ear drum -- all the result, he says, of his time in custody.

Not once during those nearly seven years in custody did anyone tell him why he was being held.

All they told him, according to Iqbal, was that they were sent "by the U.S. government (in) Washington, D.C., by (the) CIA, to interrogate you if you have any information about terrorists or terrorism."

Despite his anger and his physical ailments, Iqbal says he "was born again and given a new life from God" after his release. He is demanding justice for what he says was his unlawful detention -- but not through violent means.

"We have to convey that Islam is a peace(ful) religion and we (do) not hate anybody," he said.

American Idol thinks you're really stupid

If you happen to be in Austin, Texas and you come across the Palazio Men's Club Stripper Idol contest, FremantleMedia wants you to know that the amateur stripper contest is in no way affiliated with American Idol – in case you get confused.

The weekly contest, in which half naked girls compete for a $500 prize, is NOT sponsored by the TV show in which would be singers compete for a record contract. OK? In fact, FremantleMedia, the company that owns American Idol, wants you to know so badly it's suing the club.

The Dallas Morning News reports that attorneys for FremantleMedia North America have sued the club in U.S. district court, seeking to end the contest and seize Palazio's profits.

Seize the profits? From a strip club? I know the music industry is struggling but exactly how hard up are they? Maybe things are worse than I thought. Not surprisingly, the club managers thought the lawsuit was a joke at first.

The Dallas News says the suit takes "more issue with the club's marketing than it does with the contest itself. The suit notes that Palazio uses the word 'idol' in the contest name, a direct link to American Idol…And it has designed a contest logo that uses a 'color scheme, design and font' that mirrors that of the TV show. In addition to using the logo in its marketing and advertisements, waitresses at the club wear T-shirts emblazoned with it and cut, tie and tailor them in revealing ways."

Oh no! We wouldn't want to have anything revealing associated with American Idol! *Cough* Bikini Girl. *Cough*

In a statement that is probably stretching it quite a bit, the suit notes, "There is a substantial likelihood that consumers will be confused, misled or deceived as to the sponsorship ... of the defendants' stripper talent contest."

I think people are probably smarter than that but what do I know? Up until a few years ago I thought the Boston Tea Party was about an actual tea party.

Club managers say they have no intention of halting the contest, now in its 12th week.

Edmonton man left quadriplegic after Bon Jovi concert awaits day in court

It's been 18 months since Dennis Schulz, an Edmonton,Alberta father of two, went to a Bon Jovi concert and in just a heartbeat, had his neck snapped under the weight of a falling fellow human being.

But any relief for the quadriplegic, who launched a multimillion-dollar lawsuit back in 2007, is still a year or two away in a case that has entangled the concert promoter, the arena owner, the company in charge of serving booze at the show and even Edmonton's chief of police.

"I can't say if the [trial] date will be 2010 or 2011," Schulz's lawyer, Patrick Phelan, said in an interview with the Canadian Press. He said his client prefers not to talk to reporters but added that "his attitude is excellent," especially considering the circumstances.

"How would you feel if you had no motion in your arms and legs?" Phelan said.

Schulz was 40 at the time he and his wife, Elana Hartman, went to see the rock band perform at Rexall Place on July 12, 2007.

They were near the corner of the building in section 222, Row 22 (Schulz was in Seat 5) — good seats, the second row of the upper deck, not far from the stage.

Schulz and his wife were sitting in front of Kendra Stasyk and Darryl Allan. Behind that couple were Brad McCorry and Alisa Rabideau.

According to Schulz's statement of claim, the atmosphere wasn't safe from the get-go: the lighting was too dark, the music too loud and security lax.

Around 9:30 p.m. that night, things quickly got out of hand.

According to the statement, Rabideau was drunk and was "rudely, recklessly and repeatedly spilling beverages on spectators seated a row ahead of her."

This led to a conflict between Allan and Rabideau's companion, McCorry.

The two men began pushing each other, and Allan toppled straight back, pushing Schulz's head down until his neck snapped. His head was left hanging limply, say witnesses, his chin resting on his rib cage.

Wife, province also suing

Nobody noticed at first as the melee continued and the band played on.

Schulz's C4-5 vertebrae were snapped. Today, he can't feel anything below his neck. He can't feed himself or even cough on his own.

"Mr. Schulz ... has been advised by his doctors that he will not work at his job as a journeyman machinist again," Phelan wrote in a letter on file in the courthouse. "He will not walk again. Currently, he has no movement in his hands."

The allegations contained in the statement of claim have yet to be proven in court.

Schulz is one of three plaintiffs. His wife, Hartman, is also suing for loss of income and the province of Alberta is trying to recoup health care costs. Schulz is asking for $7 million for medical care.

His lawsuit was filed in November 2007, and in subsequent months, the defendants filed statements of defence. Many have also filed notices to each other stating that should they be found liable, they may be coming after each other for the money.

Rabideau, in her statement of defence, says she wasn't drunk or disorderly and that Allan started the confrontation by throwing a drink in her face.

In his statement of defence, McCorry said he accidentally spilled a drink on Stasyk and apologized, but Allan overreacted, throwing a drink on Rabideau, then lunging at McCorry. He said he "placed his open hand on Allan's chest to ward him off. Allan then went backwards."

Allan, in his statement, said McCorry pushed him without provocation or warning. He said he "had no opportunity to avoid contact with McCorry or to prevent himself falling."

Stasyk, in her statement, said she didn't do anything to start or inflame the melee.

Schulz accuses the concert promoter, Panhandle Productions, and the arena operator, Edmonton Northlands, of negligence for failing to provide adequate security. Both deny this.

Schulz says the employees of the company in charge of serving liquor at the concert, Dominion SportService, overserved and didn't check to see if anyone was drunk. Dominion denies this.

Schulz says the police, some of whom were contracted to provide security for the event, were lax. He claims that rather than monitor the crowd, officers simply asked ushers to report problems to them.

Edmonton Police Chief Mike Boyd has filed a statement of defense that says "adequate policing resources were supplied."

Police have not laid any charges, citing the case as non-criminal.

If the case goes to trial, it's expected to last about a month.

This is a terrible incident. There's no denying that, I hope this man and his family get some form of compensation. His life has been ruined over shameless stupidity and blatant negligence. Serving alcohol at public events where the crowds are large and impossible to control is a guaranteed recipe for disaster.

My problem with this isn't the law suit per se, but rather that it won't be the people directly involved in the incident, that actually caused the problem that will end up paying.

The reality is that the court will never order those people to pay, if the law suit is won, then the arena, and likely the police will have to pay simply because they have the money to pay (i.e. taxpayer's money for the most part).

I also have to ask this though: Who on earth would go to a Bon Jovi concert and be surprised that it is dark and loud and semi "out of control"? ITS A ROCK CONCERT!!!!

It is sad to say, but the lawyers of this country have made is so we can guarantee that a good sized percentage of that crowd will be high on drugs or drunk because the police and security have very limited authority to intervene until AFTER something actually happens.
If the police or security had marched down there and tried to remove this drunken couple and THEN this fellow was injured in a fight somehow, everyone would be blaming the police for it and the lawsuit would be a slam dunk.

Perhaps if we were to get back to some common sense and say that police and security have the right to search people entering and have drug dogs clearing the entire crowd, and that anyone deemed to be already high or drunk at the doors could be turned away, then maybe, just MAYBE, we could make public events like this fun for the good and decent folks again and get the jerks out of there.

I am not going to hold my breath though. There are too many lawyers out there who will sue and fight for anything anytime and basically doom the rest of us to live with this nonsense because we might be trampling on someone's rights by telling them that they can't be drunk or high at these events.

Lawsuit seeks to take God out of Presidential inauguration

A number of atheists and non-religious organizations want Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony to leave out all references to God and religion.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, the plaintiffs demand that the words "so help me God" not be added to the end of the president's oath of office.

In addition, the lawsuit objects to plans for ministers to deliver an invocation and a benediction in which they may discuss God and religion.

An advance copy of the lawsuit was posted online by Michael Newdow, a California doctor and lawyer who has filed similar and unsuccessful suits over inauguration ceremonies in 2001 and 2005.

Joining Newdow in the suit are groups advocating religious freedom or atheism, including the American Humanist Association, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and atheist groups from Minnesota; Seattle, Washington; and Florida.

The new lawsuit says in part, "There can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists."

Newdow said references to God during inauguration ceremonies violate the Constitution's ban on the establishment of religion.

Newdow and other plaintiffs say they want to watch the inaugural either in person or on television. As atheists, they contend, having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.

"Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny," according to the lawsuit.

Among those named in the lawsuit are Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, who is expected to swear in the new president; the Presidential Inauguration Committee; the Joint Congressional Committee on Inauguration Ceremonies and its chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California; and the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee and its commander, Maj. Gen. Richard Rowe Jr.

The two ministers scheduled to participate in the ceremony also are named: the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery. The document includes a quotation from Warren on atheists: "I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, 'I don't need God.' "

Newdow said that he didn't name President-elect Barack Obama in the suit because in addition to participating as a government official at the ceremony, he possesses rights as an individual that allow him to express religious beliefs.

"If he chooses to ask for God's help, I'm not going to challenge him," Newdow said. "I think it's unwise."

Newdow said that as a member of a racial minority, Obama should have respect for atheists, who also are members of a minority.

Newdow said religious references in the inauguration ceremony send a message to non-believers.

"The message here is, we who believe in God are the righteous, the real Americans," he said.

Newdow said it's unconstitutional to imply that atheists and others are not as good.

He acknowledged that his suit is unlikely to be successful.

"I have no doubt I'll lose," he said, adding that he hoped to eventually succeed through appeals and hoped future inauguration ceremonies would exclude religious references.

I'm wondering what my readers thoughts on this are? leave your comments on this topic.

GM sues bankrupt supplier

General Motors Corp. is suing a bankrupt automotive supplier for immediate access to specialized parts and equipment, arguing that a delay would hamper the launch of its new Chevrolet Camaro, disrupt assembly operations and cause millions of dollars in damages it can ill afford.

In a filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware on Christmas Eve, GM accused Cadence Innovation LLC of Troy, Michigan, of "holding hostage" the parts and tooling equipment it needs and breaching the terms of an agreement it signed with the automaker in August.

Cadence, which GM had once hailed as its 2006 supplier of the year, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August, which became a liquidation proceeding earlier this month.
The automotive supplier makes door panels, airbag covers, consoles and other parts.

GM said it employs "just-in-time" manufacturing where parts are placed into vehicles within hours of delivery. The automaker has on hand parts that can support assembly operations only for several days to a week.

GM wants immediate access to the parts and equipment so it can have a new supplier in place and making parts by Jan. 12 to avoid a major disruption to its assembly operations.

"Even one day's disruption in supply of certain component parts could cause a shutdown of GM assembly operations, disrupting not only GM's business, but the operations of countless suppliers, dealers, customers and other stakeholders," the lawsuit claims.

GM said such a shutdown would cost the company millions of dollars in damages daily at each affected plant. The automaker accused Cadence of refusing to adhere to their August agreement and hampering its efforts to take possession of parts and equipment.

Cadence did not immediately return a call for comment on Friday.

Shares of GM rose 42 cents, or nearly 13 per cent, to $3.67 in afternoon trading. Late Wednesday the U.S. Federal Reserve granted bank holding status to its financing arm, GMAC Financial Services, which made GMAC eligible for funds earmarked for the government's $700 billion bank rescue plan and saved it from possible bankruptcy. The move came just days after the White House threw GM and fellow Detroit automaker Chrysler LLC a $17.4 billion emergency lifeline.

Music industry moves to disconnect file sharers in U.S.

As a follow up to a story I posted here yesterday.

The U.S. recording industry is shifting away from suing file sharers and toward working out deals with internet service providers that could see downloaders have their access cut off, but the issue in Canada is still muddy because of a lack of clear copyright law.

The Recording Industry Association of America (or RIAA) on Friday said it was changing its approach to one it hopes will be more effective in persuading people to stop downloading music illegally.

More than 35,000 Americans have been sued since 2003, but the percentage of internet users who pirate music has stayed relatively steady at around 20 per cent, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Under the new approach, the RIAA will send an e-mail to an ISP when it believes one of the service provider's customers is downloading music illegally. Depending on the deal set up with the service provider, customers will receive warnings, possibly followed by a slow-down in their connection speed and ultimately a cancellation of their access (If you think your connection is slow now...just keep downloading, you'll see what slow is!) .

The RIAA said it has agreements in principle with some U.S. ISPs, but it didn't name them. Service providers have in the past been reluctant to act as copyright police, but some are becoming more co-operative with the entertainment industry as they seek to sign more deals for content with those same companies.

The move would follow similar developments in other countries including France and Britain, where ISPs are working with the entertainment industry to curtail illegal downloading.

Canadian ISPs have so far successfully lobbied the federal government against forcing them to intervene in downloading. The government's controversial Bill C-61 copyright reform legislation, introduced in the summer, contained a "safe harbour" provision that would have let ISPs off the hook for what their customers downloaded. Bill C-61, however, died when the fall election was called.

Lawsuits against music downloaders have not materialized in Canada to the same level as in the United States. The Canadian Recording Industry Association in 2004 sued 29 unnamed alleged file-sharers but the case was defeated when the Federal Court of Canada ruled that making digital music files available to others for download did not constitute copyright infringement.

Some lawyers and internet law experts also argue that a private copying tax on blank media is intended to compensate artists for revenue lost to file-sharing.

The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) , however, says the levy was never intended to legalize file-sharing. CRIA president Graham Henderson said it is not OK for a person to walk into a store, physically steal a CD, make copies of it and then have those copies considered legal. File-sharing of digital copies is the same thing, he asserted.

"[The levy] is one of the muddiest of the muddy waterers. (Is waterers a word?) I don't see it as having a role in legalizing it at all, but it certainly is one of the many excuses floated for why it's OK to do this in Canada," Henderson said. "You can't take something in an unauthorized way, copy it and then that copy is somehow legal."

University of Ottawa internet law professor Michael Geist said the analogy is irrelevant because the courts have been clear that the original source of the copy doesn't matter.

"It's certainly an arguable case that some of the personal non-commercial downloading that takes place falls within the ambit of the levy," he said.

Henderson said the CRIA has had a policy of not suing downloaders since he took the group's reins four years ago, despite people such as Barenaked Ladies frontman Steven Page warning that it was considering doing so. The CRIA has instead focused on getting copyright law straightened out so that it would be clear what people could and couldn't do with their music, he said.

Geist said the industry group has avoided lawsuits because of the negative publicity the 2004 case attracted. He also said that moves to involve ISPs as copyright cops in several countries have been hugely controversial and could backfire on both the industry as well as the service providers.

"It's viewed by many as a draconian step and we've seen push back against it in many countries," he said. "The ISPs that do that risk a serious backlash from their customers."

Henderson applauded the RIAA's move toward negotiating with ISPs and would like to do the same in Canada, but said the copyright situation needs to be sorted out first.

"Then we could give Canadians a fair chance to obey the law because, as I've said many, many times, I believe Canadians are fundamentally law abiding," he said. "The problem in Canada is we don't have laws to abide by. People are confused."

The Conservatives promised to reintroduce copyright reform legislation as part of their election platform, but those plans were put on hold with the eruption of parliamentary turmoil in November.

Although the CRIA praised Bill C-61 for its tough stance against file-sharing, the legislation was widely opposed by numerous other industry groups as being too heavily skewed toward copyright owners.

Geist said the only way the music industry can combat file-sharing is to provide a compelling legal alternative.

"The industry chose to sue rather than innovate," he said. "They're starting to come around, but it's pretty late in the game."

RIAA axes P2P file-sharing lawsuits

Those of you who regularly share music over the Internet, Whether legally or illegally, might have by now heard the news that the Recording Industry Association of America is shelving the practice of filing lawsuits against most individuals it suspects are pirating copyrighted music online.

I say most because the RIAA still reserves the right to sue heavy file sharers or those who ignore warnings to stop. Now, the RIAA has a new tactic. It’s made agreements with several Internet service providers in which the ISPs will help them police alleged law-breakers.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the RIAA will send a letter to an ISP (internet service provider) when it thinks one of its customers is illegally sharing copyrighted music. The ISP will then either forward the letter to the alleged offender or ask him or her to stop.

If the file-sharer ignores the warning, he/she risks having his/her Internet service terminated or his/her bandwidth squeezed to the point where it takes watching the entire “Lord of the Rings” trilogy before all 11 tracks of Beyonce’s “Sasha..I am Fierce” are illegally in his/her possession. Ouch...that's slow!

So why the change of heart? The RIAA has sued some 30,000 people over the past five years, a tactic that’s proved expensive and , critics argue, has been largely ineffective. I mean, has anyone really stopped sharing their music library since the lawsuits began? I didn’t think so, And they’re not alone.
While CD sales continue to decline, the number of people sharing files online continues to increase.

This new deal makes me a little nervous because now, your ISP is poised to become an uptight hall monitor who'll narcs on every kid who smokes in the bathroom, instead of looking the other way even though it knows what you’re doing is against the rules.

I think ISPs should remain neutral.

Nervous? Maybe you should be. Maybe you shouldn’t.

You could continue to share copyrighted songs online, hoping you’ll never be caught.
At the very least, perhaps you should look to the Electronic Frontiers Foundation’s advice on how to avoid trouble (at least take a peek?).

There’s a decent chance you’ll never feel the RIAA’s tap on your shoulder. Plus, the way things are, I have no doubt word will spread quickly on how to cloak file-sharing so the ISPs and the RIAA can’t see what you’re up to.

The bottom line is: Sharing copyrighted material online is against the law.

To quote Dirty Harry, “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”