Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Actually no, I am just stating that the industry has changed. The music industry did a lot of this to themselves. For years (maybe even decades) they have put out artists who have 1-3 good songs and they rushed a CD so you could buy it. You had not other choice. if you wanted those songs you had to purchase the full CD and the record industry made a lot of money off of it. Now that has changed. Now if you want to buy just a couple of songs you can. I actually think that is good because artists that put out good full albums will sell them and those that just release a single or only have a couple of good songs will only sell that.
I do however think that the record labels should be allowed to defend themselves against illegal downloaders. If they feel suing everyone who ever illegally downloaded a song is the way to go about defending themselves then so be it. If it ends up biting them in the ass in the end then they will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Call me crazy but I guess I just don't see it as too much to ask to pay for the music you own.
|
well that part of the problem, i don't think this case is legitimate on the bases that she did buy those 24 songs.
According to the evidence those songs appeared on cd she did buy, the version she had on her computer were ones that happened to be ripped by a pirate group but that does change the point she paid for those songs already. She could have just as easily ripped them from her bought cds.
The point is i have been a system administrator for a large university so i am fully aware that there are two types of backup, the sms (system managment server) creates ghost images of the base pc (all the os and software installed) and a second server that stores the backups of the private data of the individual pc.
Arguing that reaquiring a differently sourced version of the copyright material is automatically a copyright violation would make those servers illegal too. there is to much established doctrine under the law that contridicts that statement.
Which is again the main reason i believe this has more to do with them knocking down bogus precedents rather than just go for the easier winning arguements (bankruptcy, backup/recovery, bad instruction that ignores fair use etc).
if anything the outrage at this absurd judgements when these easier to win arguements are finally made will be used to fuel the extension of fair use to cover "filesharing for personal use" something which i personally think would go to far. But is getting ever more likely with each passing bad judgement