Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
First... It was 1700 she was sued for originally, ie: they blanked her. Then after the VERY FIRST court case, it was 24 that she lost on. She has lost on the same 24 songs, 3 times total.
"On October 4, 2007, after 5 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict finding her liable for willful infringement, and awarded statutory damages in the amount of $9,250 for each of the 24 songs, for a total of $222,000." <---- first trial
Here are the facts.... You've never read the case or the transcripts. And the only information you have about this case, you've probably read from torrent news sites or... like the rest of us, news AFTER the court ruling happened.
|
really then tell me what the mistake was in the first case.
it was that the judge gave instructions that even if she didn't intend for the content to be shared she would be guilty of wilfully infringing .
the second case they blanketed her with the same 1700 mp3s.
they were only able to get a conviction for the 24 she didn't personally rip, the logical arguement was that since the source was a pirate source, she had no right to put them in her my music folder, ergo, she wilfully infringed when they were shared, automagically by kazaa since she had no right to put them in her my music folder in the first place.
ie none of the other infringements would have ever happened has she not "wilfully infringed" in the first place
that all changes if kazaa is just the network aware version of cd ripping software (like the rpvr is the network aware version of pvr)
as for reading the transcripts, i understand that prespective is going to change your opinion of this case, so yes i do read the transcripts.
that why i know what mistake the judge made, the reason why it was dropped from 1700 to 24 and so on,
obviously you don't
btw
your statement doesn't even make sense, if they successfully blanketed her before with 1700 violations and they simple decided to reduce it 24 (and therefore getting ungodly grief for the per song damages) why would the not simply go back to the old proven and supposedly valid original 1700 mp3 arguement again.