Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
how exactly did they know which 1700 songs to accuse her of sharing if they had no proof of what songs she shared.
this women was one of the people who got the mass mailed pay up or else letters
the Capital hires people to use KAZAA to download songs FROM the people they send the letter, they log the downloads, and after confirming that the songs is really the song it titled they send the demand letter with the times, dates, and songs that are infringed.
That is Proof the songs was traded
the defence lost the first appeal, when they argued that none of the evidence (entrapment defence) could be used because the proof of the infringement would never exist if the agent of the copyright holder had not initiated the request for the content.
they won on the second (make available does not automatically = infringement)
that why she got convicted for all 1700 the first time.
this was the mistake in ruling the judge made, and it was overturned (taking the make available precedent with it ) to get the second trial.
when they tried again they could only get a conviction for the 24 songs out of the 1700.
basically the defence argued that she should not be held wilfully responsible for sharing that KAZAA did automatically just because she choose to use the default install which auto indexed her music folder
the record company counter this arguement for only 24 songs by proving that the file in question were from Kazaa and not her own ripping of the music.
in essense, she was wilfully liable because she had no right to have the songs in her my music folder.
Since the only "right" to have the songs in her my music folder was the fair use of format shifting fair use is at the core of the case.
If format shifting is extended to use kazaa as a network aware mp3 ripper, then those 24 songs have as much right to be there as the other 1666 songs she was aquited of.
|
You haven't read this at all.... period. She was convicted of 24 the first time.
The defense made several claims, one that she burned the music but yet couldn't produce a cd, receipt, bank record, anything - other than a couple of CD's in 05. She claimed she didn't use it by providing a cd with no music on it - yet claimed the cd's burned to Kazaa's music folder. She claimed she did not subscribe to her ISP, when she did. And she claimed a ton of other shit that contradicted herself. And they have her mac address to her pc directly downloading.
Other claims include, privacy violation, some state act violated, after being nailed twice she brings up fair use and that gets squashed. The list is long, she's trying everything and getting pawned on them all.
The songs were tossed out because the RIAA had to 'prove the actual transfer was made'. They could prove it on 24 songs to other sources. That's what the actual instructions were from the judge, and when they called it some distribution method, they took it as the RIAA instructing the jury.
None of the other shit you said even came up...