“Everyone knows that Jammie, like many before her, should have taken the out of court settlement option and not attempted to defend a legally indefensible position in a court of law. Still, despite the comfort some feel now that the message has been well and truly banged home, the verdict arguably makes a mockery of the notion of a punishment befitting the crime. Such disproportionate action reinforces a negative public perception labels would do well to avoid, especially when alternative (and arguably more effective) tactics such as forced server take-downs are available.

It matters little that the labels who brought the action under the aegis of the RIAA, are in the moral and legal right. What counts is what consumers think, and, notwithstanding the tabled offer for her to settle out of court, if consumers become mistakenly convinced ‘The Man’ is intent on screwing them, then the negative perception of the business and accompanying attitude that a free-for-all is justified will continue”

Doesn’t do your journalistic credibility much good does it?

The MusicTank piece also discusses the;

“questionable tactic of suing the customers you hope to market to”

and also suggests that it

“…matters little that the labels who brought the action under the aegis of the RIAA, are in the moral and legal right.”

So I think you’ve over-reacted a little by refusing to engage with them again. That said, as an ex-journalist I can’t forgive them the you’re/your spelling mistake (which they’ve now corrected BTW – wonder if they read your blog Andrew!?)

Joe