Hollywood really has their priorities straight.
Well I hate to say it but if she’s downloading music and sharing, it’s illegal.
My problem is that the music industry is so late to the digital party that they’ve missed an opportunity to come up with a way for people to do it legally. Instead, they’ll just create a lot of ill will with consumers with lawsuits and the refusal to allow people to listen to music however they want to.
What will Al Sharpton do? What will the ACLU do? Since she is a native American, will her tribe allow RIAA to actually try to collect anything?
What will Al Sharpton do? What will the ACLU do? Since she is a native American, will her tribe allow RIAA to actually try to collect anything?
Glad these guys have their priorities straight and getting those single moms.
They should spend that money on finding real talent so that the consumer would be more than happy to buy their products. Some of the S*&^ they put out today, they should be paying us to listen to it.
I bet the RIAA gave the thief an oppurtunity to settle early on for about $1,500, but she rejected the offer.
She WAS guilty, but that fine is insane.
How many times has this article been copied and posted?
I would expect there to be a good chance that this verdict will be set aside for technical reasons, basically that “an IP number is not a human being.”
This is especially true of the vast number of people who are on WIFI computer systems. The ease in which they can be penetrated means that it is near impossible to tell “who pulled the trigger.”
And while a jury may find against her for “a preponderance of the evidence”, an appellate judge will be inclined to set aside their decision, since it cannot legally be determined that she was the one who downloaded or uploaded music.
This uses the same logic that you just can’t sue somebody because you feel like it. You have to prove that they were the ones who civilly injured you.
I have yet to understand why our copyrights, digital rights, owner's rights, and usage rights are so complicated and different for different media.
I copy/rip songs and play them for a non-paying audience of as many people as I can pack into my home and they can record those sounds with their own voice recorders/cell phones . . . but I can't share the same songs with a friend online.
If I were on that jury, I would have awarded the plaintiffs with the market price for every song they could prove was on this woman's harddrive and NOT ripped from her own cd's. No file, no award. If they claimed she had downloaded thousands, where are they?
Many years ago, I was a Kazaa user myself and know that a large percentage of songs I downloaded were bogus tracks, the wrong song, incomplete, and/or corrupt and unreadable. However, I was a bit smarter than this woman as I uninstalled it as soon as the courts ruled against Kazaa. Up to that point, I wasn't sure how the legal challenge would play out.
I believe the legality issue still isn't resolved in Russia and went against the RIAA in Canada. Strange stuff.
The RIAA is dead, and simply does not know it yet.
It has been long past time to bury that exploitive Dinosaur outfit.
My contention is that you cannot own music or creativity.
Who owns these copyrights? If the individual music composers own the copyrights, shouldn’t they be the people suing this lady? If the RIAA owns these copyrights, then the RIAA is benefiting from other people’s work.