Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
if that were the case should would have been convicted for all 1700 songs she "shared"
the reason it down to 24 songs is because kazza automatically indexed the my music folder, and she ripped all her cd to that folder.
she was convicted for the 24 songs she didn't personally rip.
kazza is a file locating protocol not session based like bit torrent so remember just by having the file in the folder she was sharing it
BTW Doc
this legitimized "not my fault defence" was what this article is misrepresenting as "i was not the file sharer defence"
20th century vs Cablevision ruled that when defining fair use you must look at it from the prespective of the end user when the US supreme court upheld that decision it made that POV rule of law.
|
It doesn't say anything about her ripping her own cd's and those by mistake making it into Kazza. It says she was "penalized
for illegally downloading and sharing 24 songs on the peer-to-peer"
The problem isn't that she downloaded or ripped them... the problem is she shared them on a "peer-to-peer" AFTER she downloaded them.
It's fair use for her to download/rip her own, it's not fair use to share them on a peer-to-peer, as already proven by her court case, other court cases and Kazaa itself.