Minnesota Mom has to pay 1.5 million fine

[sweetcuties]

Wow, that's crazy.. she should pay something but that's alot of coin

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/amp...ding-24-songs/

[seeandsee]

jez they financialy raped her with this

[Davy]

Bad press for the music industry.
But they have to do something...

[Agent 488]

party like it's 1999.

[TheDoc]

How stupid... like they will ever collect that.

[stocktrader23]

This is what some in the adult industry are trying to do. Hilariously pathetic.

[FreeHugeMovies]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

How stupid... like they will ever collect that.

Don't you think they know that? Was this even about money? Nope.

[gideongallery]

funny thing is that this case is totally about fair use

the women actually bought the songs she was acccused of "Stealing"

they just happened to exist somewhere in her 1000s of cds

rather then hunting thru her collection

she used kazza to get an mp3 version that was ripped by someone else

kazza was just a format shifting tool.

this case is about needling download rights in favor or people plain and simple

if it was truely about defending herself she would have made the fair use claim

pointed to the RPVR cases ruling that fair use must be determined based on the POV of the user not the network, and be done with completely.

[thickcash_amo]

wow that really sucks but I am sure the record companys want to make an example from someone

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

funny thing is that this case is totally about fair use

the women actually bought the songs she was acccused of "Stealing"

they just happened to exist somewhere in her 1000s of cds

rather then hunting thru her collection

she used kazza to get an mp3 version that was ripped by someone else

kazza was just a format shifting tool.

this case is about needling download rights in favor or people plain and simple

if it was truely about defending herself she would have made the fair use claim

pointed to the RPVR cases ruling that fair use must be determined based on the POV of the user not the network, and be done with completely.

This lady has already been sued for sharing 1700 other songs.
And it's not that she "illegally downloaded 24 songs"; it about her sharing
those 24 songs with 60 million people.

If only food worked like file sharing; then one dude could buy one McDouble
for .99 cents and take it to the hood and feed everybody.
Wouldn't life just be fucking great.............. Except for anyone who invested in McDonalds.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

funny thing is that this case is totally about fair use

the women actually bought the songs she was acccused of "Stealing"

they just happened to exist somewhere in her 1000s of cds

rather then hunting thru her collection

she used kazza to get an mp3 version that was ripped by someone else

kazza was just a format shifting tool.

this case is about needling download rights in favor or people plain and simple

if it was truely about defending herself she would have made the fair use claim

pointed to the RPVR cases ruling that fair use must be determined based on the POV of the user not the network, and be done with completely.

Odd.... The article says, "Thomas-Rasset maintained she wasn't the computer user who did the file sharing."

That's a hell of a difference from, I purchased these and couldn't find the cd.

[Agent 488]

you have got the facts totally wrong. you may have lost it finally. talk to a family physician.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

funny thing is that this case is totally about fair use

the women actually bought the songs she was acccused of "Stealing"

they just happened to exist somewhere in her 1000s of cds

rather then hunting thru her collection

she used kazza to get an mp3 version that was ripped by someone else

kazza was just a format shifting tool.

this case is about needling download rights in favor or people plain and simple

if it was truely about defending herself she would have made the fair use claim

pointed to the RPVR cases ruling that fair use must be determined based on the POV of the user not the network, and be done with completely.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by Davy

Bad press for the music industry.
But they have to do something...

It's not bad press for the people who pay for music and think other
people who don't pay are crooks.

And who does the music industry care about?
People who pay? Or people who download for free?

[moeloubani]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

This lady has already been sued for sharing 1700 other songs.
And it's not that she "illegally downloaded 24 songs"; it about her sharing
those 24 songs with 60 million people.

If only food worked like file sharing; then one dude could buy one McDouble
for .99 cents and take it to the hood and feed everybody.
Wouldn't life just be fucking great.............. Except for anyone who invested in McDonalds.

Except McDonalds sells tangible goods which are depleted after distributing them. So it's totally different!

[stocktrader23]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

funny thing is that this case is totally about fair use

the women actually bought the songs she was acccused of "Stealing"

they just happened to exist somewhere in her 1000s of cds

rather then hunting thru her collection

she used kazza to get an mp3 version that was ripped by someone else

kazza was just a format shifting tool.

this case is about needling download rights in favor or people plain and simple

if it was truely about defending herself she would have made the fair use claim

pointed to the RPVR cases ruling that fair use must be determined based on the POV of the user not the network, and be done with completely.

This case is about her leaving them in a folder that shared them with potentially millions of other people.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

This case is about her leaving them in a folder that shared them with potentially millions of other people.

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.

[chronig]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

funny thing is that this case is totally about fair use

the women actually bought the songs she was acccused of "Stealing"

they just happened to exist somewhere in her 1000s of cds

rather then hunting thru her collection

she used kazza to get an mp3 version that was ripped by someone else

kazza was just a format shifting tool.

this case is about needling download rights in favor or people plain and simple

if it was truely about defending herself she would have made the fair use claim

pointed to the RPVR cases ruling that fair use must be determined based on the POV of the user not the network, and be done with completely.

FORMAT SHIFTING?

someone needs to beat in your fat ass head with an aluminum baseball bat you fat lunatic piece of shit

Kazaa was NOT just a format shifting tool you fucking clown!!! lolz...

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by moeloubani

Except McDonalds sells tangible goods which are depleted after distributing them. So it's totally different!

Yeah, no shit. As if I didn't say this : "If only food worked like file sharing".

[PornMD]

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.

You're such an expert on the usage of Kazaa but can't even spell it right.

I'm trying to understand how you consider something like Kazaa different than something like torrents when the only difference is that the downloader is getting it bit by bit from multiple places.

[TheDoc]

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.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by PornMD

You're such an expert on the usage of Kazaa but can't even spell it right.

I'm trying to understand how you consider something like Kazaa different than something like torrents when the only difference is that the downloader is getting it bit by bit from multiple places.

Basically... Kazaa was controlled software, that searched and recorded the search, across the p2p network, matching people up directly to other users... and you could lbrowse through what they had, I think that was an issue too.

Torrent, (not the trackers) isn't a single controlled software, it doesn't record anything and it does not control access/accounts, the torrent-user isn't searching 'you' then grabbing a variety of things.

Now the trackers, are some what like Kazza, other than the bit differences and search doesn't gather/log anything. I think that is why some of the torrent sites/trackers have taken the heat and not the technology directly.

[HomerSimpson]

this shit is crazy...

[bronco67]

I'm no legal expert, but I excel in common fucking sense.

They'll never collect that much money, and it'll end up dragging out in court for years(as it has), make an enemy out of a customer, and possibly anyone else that knows about this case.

They could just ask for a reasonable amount like $100 per song, which most offenders would probably willingly concede to, and probably never download illegally again.

Case closed.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

funny thing is that this case is totally about fair use

the women actually bought the songs she was acccused of "Stealing"

they just happened to exist somewhere in her 1000s of cds

rather then hunting thru her collection

she used kazza to get an mp3 version that was ripped by someone else

kazza was just a format shifting tool.

this case is about needling download rights in favor or people plain and simple

if it was truely about defending herself she would have made the fair use claim

pointed to the RPVR cases ruling that fair use must be determined based on the POV of the user not the network, and be done with completely.

BULLSHIT. How fucking stupid are you that you can't rip a song on a a CD to MP3 format? And if you are that fucking stupid then pay the 99 cents for the MP3 from a LEGAL source.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by bronco67

I'm no legal expert, but I excel in common fucking sense.

They'll never collect that much money, and it'll end up dragging out in court for years(as it has), make an enemy out of a customer, and possibly anyone else that knows about this case.

They could just ask for a reasonable amount like $100 per song, which most offenders would probably willingly concede to, and probably never download illegally again.

Case closed.

If one is pirating music they are NOT a customer are they?

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by GatorB

BULLSHIT. How fucking stupid are you that you can't rip a song on a a CD to MP3 format? And if you are that fucking stupid then pay the 99 cents for the MP3 from a LEGAL source.

It would be a legal source if she ever owned the music... It wasn't that she downloaded it, the issue was she also shared them.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

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.

1 the case started win her being convicted of 1700 violations

and is now down to 24

common sense should tell something happened to eliminate most of those violations she first got convicted of

just because the blogger doesn't give you all the facts doesn't mean they don't exist

read the actual case. This has been something i have repeatedly talked about here

and there are dozens of articles, and transcripts that tell you exactly why most of the songs stopped being violations.

(see the reason i gave you)

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by chronig

FORMAT SHIFTING?

someone needs to beat in your fat ass head with an aluminum baseball bat you fat lunatic piece of shit

Kazaa was NOT just a format shifting tool you fucking clown!!! lolz...

and RPVR of cablevision was not just a timeshifting tool

and a SMS server is not just a backup tool

the legal point is not what it COULD be used for but what it IS used for.

someone using kazaa to get music they never bought is violating copyright law

someone using kazaa to change format shift content they bought is not.

read ruling in the 20th century fox vs cable vision ruling.

The judge (and the supreme court agreed) that the point of view you must take when determining if something is fair use or not is end user

fair use counts even in large amounts.

[Dodododa]

If they can shut Limewire down for hosting illegal member content, why can't they shut down the tubes for doing the same?

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by bronco67

They'll never collect that much money, and it'll end up dragging out in court for years(as it has), make an enemy out of a customer, and possibly anyone else that knows about this case.

Please explain to me how a person stealing your stuff is a customer that you
should care about.

I'm not getting that part.


And yes, they don't give a shit about ever getting any money out of this
person. They do want this to drag on and on and on and on and make
her life a living hell of legal trouble.

If she fails to appear in court just one time then she can go to jail for that.
So they will keep calling her into court to stress her until she goes to jail
or they exhaust all means to order her to court.

It works great.

Imagine still being called to court 5, 6, ...9 years down the line and wishing
they would just reach a settlement that you could pay and be done with it.

Believe me, this lady wishes she could just pay and make this all go away.

The music industry doesn't want her to pay. That would be too easy.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

1 the case started win her being convicted of 1700 violations

and is now down to 24

common sense should tell something happened to eliminate most of those violations she first got convicted of

just because the blogger doesn't give you all the facts doesn't mean they don't exist

read the actual case. This has been something i have repeatedly talked about here

and there are dozens of articles, and transcripts that tell you exactly why most of the songs stopped being violations.

(see the reason i gave you)

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.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

and RPVR of cablevision was not just a timeshifting tool

and a SMS server is not just a backup tool

the legal point is not what it COULD be used for but what it IS used for.

someone using kazaa to get music they never bought is violating copyright law

someone using kazaa to change format shift content they bought is not.

read ruling in the 20th century fox vs cable vision ruling.

The judge (and the supreme court agreed) that the point of view you must take when determining if something is fair use or not is end user

fair use counts even in large amounts.

That's IF it's fair use... then all that would apply. However - this case has nothing to do with fair use, it's not fair use - at all.

If you upload content to "change format shift content" and it's for yourself ONLY, then you're fine. But once someone else downloads it, YOU are in violation of copyright and not the person downloading it - they would be subject to fair use - depending on the use.

Do you read any of these court rulings you always quote?

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Dodododa

If they can shut Limewire down for hosting illegal member content, why can't they shut down the tubes for doing the same?

because no one cares about porn. And in fact if tubes cause the downfall of porn then that's all the better for all the anti-porn people.

[Barry-xlovecam]

She will just declare bankruptcy to beat this judgment.

And unfortunately, lose may other assets in the process.

The real loser will be The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). They are now reviled in the public's eye and this will only be cause for more revulsion.

This should be see as a classic lose-lose.
I think they are really "beating the dead baby" here ...

[martinsc]

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

That's IF it's fair use... then all that would apply. However - this case has nothing to do with fair use, it's not fair use - at all.

If you upload content to "change format shift content" and it's for yourself ONLY, then you're fine. But once someone else downloads it, YOU are in violation of copyright and not the person downloading it - they would be subject to fair use - depending on the use.

Do you read any of these court rulings you always quote?

so by that standard if you throw copyrighted song in the garbage and i search thru your trash and make a copy your guilty of a copyright violation

the make available ruling was thrown out, in this case btw

that the reason it went from 1700 violations down to only 24

because kazaa auto indexed her my music folder, she ripped most of the songs to the default location (my music folder)

the remaining 24 were songs who's source was the kazaa network.


you have to understand that every fair use can be precieved as infringement if you look at it from the networks point of view.


in fact when the original ruling came down in 20th century fox vs cablevision that exactly why they ruled it was an infringement.

the appeals process showed that if you looked at it from the end users it was no different then useing a vcr to play timeshifted content.


The key point is that the pov you must use because that the ruling of the supreme court

if you look at from that point of view, there is no difference between clicking a few buttons on cd ripping software, to make a formated shifted copy of your mp3 to your my music folder and clicking a few buttons to make a formated shifted copy of an mp3 from the kazaa network to your music folder.


once it there legally, sharing it due to an autoindexing of kazaa is no different then the over 1600 songs she was found not guilty of infringing on.

[gideongallery]

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.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

That's IF it's fair use... then all that would apply. However - this case has nothing to do with fair use, it's not fair use - at all.

so the case that establishes the point of view you must take to legitimately define fair use should only apply if it already defined as fair use



do you even think when you make statements like this.

[BlackCrayon]

i don't know why they don't do something realistic. charge her 1 dollar per song plus a 15 dollar fine per song. something people could easily (usually) pay but wouldn't want to...

[TheDoc]

Hahaha, that some of the best bullshit I've ever heard... no, that would be your standard of made up shit, however the courts see it differently.

The 1600 songs was kicked because they couldn't prove she downloaded/uploaded, traded them - it's in the article. It had nothing to do with fair use and everything to do with a lack of them proving it. They could prove the 24 other songs were pirated.

The mistake was a blanket lawsuit without proof of every infringement, but not a mistake enough for her to be able to come back after them. The 2nd case was appeal, SHE repeated it and got nailed again

And no, you haven't read the transcripts...or you would know why the reduction in songs happened.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so the case that establishes the point of view you must take to legitimately define fair use should only apply if it already defined as fair use



do you even think when you make statements like this.

It has nothing to do with fair use, because it had nothing to do with fair use... you're making up a reason, it's that simple.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

The music industry doesn't want her to pay. That would be too easy.

the riaa offered to settle for 25k and admission that she is guilty she refused.

this about lawyers using this case to strike down every bogus precedent they can.

just look at the way they are doing this case, rather then appealing with a laundry list of violations, they are doing them one at a time, getting a new trial and losing.

they have avoided making the fair use arguement, even though the supreme court has ruled the POV you must use to determine fair use is the end user prespective.

They allow the RIAA to keep presenting this from the prespective of all the "sharing" that happened.

this case has eliminated the "make available" ruling already, and there are 17 ruling they are going to ultimately target.

if you actually read the transcripts, you can quickly see what the lawyers who are donating their time want to accomplish. Even the shit they don't fight makes sense (letting the RIAA get away with arguing that court should assume she bought the cds after the court case , just because she couldn't prove she bought them before) is just to bone headed a mistake to let go unless your goal is to keep this thing alive in the courts until you have struck down every bad precedent previously set.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Please explain to me how a person stealing your stuff is a customer that you
should care about.

Everyone that listens to music is a customer. Everyone has paid for music in their lifetime. It wasn't like she was unfrozen from a block of ice and never bought a record before.

If you bypass the channels created to pay the producers of the music you listen to, then you stole it. I'm saying the record company should be trying to make true customers, rather than crucifying people.

[bronco67]

You can really tell who downloads their shit for free, and wants to make up any silly argument they want to rationalize theft. The bottom line is, if it goes in your ear, you should have the integrity to pay the artist. Just because something is copyable doesn't mean you can twist things around to make it any different than another commodity which is paid for.

The difference between a digital record album and a tshirt is, stealing the album won't get you arrested.

People steal digital music because they can. If anyone has ever created anything artistic(that includes porn) and has wanted to be paid for it, they would do the same for other artists. The majority of people just fucking consume, consume, consume. Of course they are going to steal it if there are no consequences. Its human nature.

---and I know this case about her sharing over peer to peer network. Same as theft. It's giving access to other leeches, so its just as bad as downloading from rapidshare or torrents, even if you originally ripped it from your own CD collection. If you've paid for a CD, you can copy it a million fucking times, as long as you don't give it away to a million other people that could have paid the artist for his works.

You pro-downloaders will twist things and go round and round forever with semantics.

[DaddyHalbucks]

She's probably an entitlement minded welfare bitch who thinks the whole world owes her. Glad she got what she deserved.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Hahaha, that some of the best bullshit I've ever heard... no, that would be your standard of made up shit, however the courts see it differently.

The 1600 songs was kicked because they couldn't prove she downloaded/uploaded, traded them - it's in the article. It had nothing to do with fair use and everything to do with a lack of them proving it. They could prove the 24 other songs were pirated.

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 mistake was a blanket lawsuit without proof of every infringement, but not a mistake enough for her to be able to come back after them. The 2nd case was appeal, SHE repeated it and got nailed again

And no, you haven't read the transcripts...or you would know why the reduction in songs happened.

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)

Michael J. Davis of Federal District Court, ruled in the industry's favor on a hotly contested technical question, saying that for jurors to find her liable, the record labels did not have to prove that songs on Ms. Thomas's computer had actually been transmitted to others online. Rather, the act of making them available could be viewed as infringement, the judge ruled.

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.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by bronco67

You can really tell who downloads their shit for free, and wants to make up any silly argument they want to rationalize theft. The bottom line is, if it goes in your ear, you should have the integrity to pay the artist. Just because something is copyable doesn't mean you can twist things around to make it any different than another commodity which is paid for.

The difference between a digital record album and a tshirt is, stealing the album won't get you arrested.

People steal digital music because they can. If anyone has ever created anything artistic(that includes porn) and has wanted to be paid for it, they would do the same for other artists. The majority of people just fucking consume, consume, consume. Of course they are going to steal it if there are no consequences. Its human nature.

---and I know this case about her sharing over peer to peer network. Same as theft. It's giving access to other leeches, so its just as bad as downloading from rapidshare or torrents, even if you originally ripped it from your own CD collection. If you've paid for a CD, you can copy it a million fucking times, as long as you don't give it away to a million other people that could have paid the artist for his works.

You pro-downloaders will twist things and go round and round forever with semantics.

this court case itself was responsible for striking down that bullshit arguement.

making available != infringement any more.

The first appeal established that fact now, that why it went from 1700 infringement to only 24.

Those 24 will disappear too as soon as format shifting is extended to network aware applications too (like RPVR).

if called fair use, understand it about the USE of the technology, not the NATURE of the technology.

[fatfoo]

That is sure a huge penalty. It seems overpriced.

[TheDoc]

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...

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

It has nothing to do with fair use, because it had nothing to do with fair use... you're making up a reason, it's that simple.

timeshifting did not exist as a fair use before the betamax case

formatshifting did not exist as a fair use before the diamond rio case


the fair use of timeshifting did not exist for network aware applications like the RPVR until the cablevision case.


the only fair uses we would have would be the ones established originally by the act if you could disregard "fair use" by simply claiming this case has nothing to do with fair use.


The fact is every case dealing with infringing copyright has to do with fair use because copyright act defines fair use

the fair use of a copyrighted work,... is not an infringement of copyright

fair use is tied to every single copyright infringement case automatically simply because the act itself defines it as a non infringing way of doing an action which would normally be considered infringing.


you can't reject it unilaterally you must define why based on current court cases (RPVR case) it doesn't apply.