You know, I have never agreed with the folks at the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF), or other groups who seem dedicated to changing the long standing laws of copyright protection in this country. But I have noted one thing. Their allies seem to include some of the brightest young minds in this country. From the law professors and students at Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Duke, and others ... to the lawyers at some of the most prestigious IP firms in the land ... to the engineers and scientists at some of our leading technology companies in this country ... the intellectual brainpower in this self-described "new wave copyright" group has been impressive. How this group could allow a strategic blunder like what we've just seen come out of Duluth is beyond me. Why these organizations didn't get involved, study the case thoroughly, and encourage Ms. Thomas, and her obviously inexperienced attorney, to surrender is phenomenal. This is not the individual, the attorney, the forum, or the time I would want a precedent such as this established. What a strategic blunder! Maybe these people are not nearly as smart as I gave them credit for. Apparently, they all sat back and naively thought (make that "wished") that Ms. Thomas would somehow end the RIAA onslaught forever. Not going to happen. The legal principles here are simple. Stealing property is not legal in this country ... whether it's physical property or intellectual property. The laws are on the books. The only logical debate I have seen relates to "selective enforcement". Don't get me wrong. I applaud the decisions made by both the judge and jury in this precedent setting case. The anti-copyright crowd will suffer the consequences of this loss big time. Our economy will be strengthened. And these decisions will do more to help curtail widespread Internet Piracy than all the politicians, copyright industry executives, anti-copyright associatoons, and lobbyists in this entire country put together. I thought good lawyers advised their clients of the downside of their attempts to "change the law of the land" and could be sanctioned if they chose to pursue only "the big payday" or their personal "15 minutes of fame" instead. Read the copyright laws. Displaying and downloading copyright-protected works owned by others without their permission is illegal. It has both civil and criminal consequences. And, as in the case of Ms.Thomas in Duluth, they can be severe. She will have to pay back nearly $500,000 (once legal fees are added to her bill) by having her pay check garnished for the rest of her life. And this poor lady is being led blindly into the darkness by all those folks who want to put her out there on public display for their own self-interests. Shameful! But she doesn't get any sympathy from me. If she had taken this many copyrighted songs out of Best Buy or Wal-Mart, she'd be in jail right now. And owe back a like amount of money as well. None of us - right or left - want to live in a lawless society. It's interesting to debate legal principles and consequences, but fearing to go outside for a cup of coffee or a loaf of bread is not something we have had any experience with in this country. Thank goodness! And if you don't think organized white collar crime families are behind much of this Internet piracy epidemic, you'd better think again. COUNTERPOINT: Here is the one issue I have discussed with my 20-year-old son and I do have "conflicts" with. Google infringes more legitimate copyrights every single day than Ms.Thomas could do in a lifetime. Do we now have a country that has completely different standards for the billionaires than we do for the normal working folks? If so, I sure hope this is short-lived as well. I think I'd rather give up the coffee and the bread than have to worry about Google stealing from me every single day. What's your opinion? George P. Riddick, III Chairman/CEO Imageline, Inc. griddick@imageline2.com