Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
I have repeatedly said you should go after the INFRINGING SEEDER directly
This is a perfect example of such an INFRINGING SEEDER
She had no fair use right to the content because she had not aquired any rights to the content
She did not buy the CD with those songs, she did not buy those tracks from itunes, rapsody or any of the song by song download sites.
Compare it with my tv example, i bought the rights to the tv shows by buying the cable subscription.
If you don't get this exactly the type of case i am arguing you SHOULD FIGHT. The RIAA did not sue KAZZA they sued the individual who was actually INFRINGING on their copyright.
|
Oh please... this is like saying you go after the drug dealer and not the whole network that brings the drugs... after all, the farmers are just working with the innocuous cocoa leaf, the chemicals they use are intended for other legal purposes until they use them illegally.
When they have enough user examples and they have percentages high enough, they show that kazaa, just like all other sharing protocols, does not do anything to dissuade copyright infringement in the slightest. Which in turn makes it guilty as an accessory and negligence.
If you are aware of the crime in your house, yet you do nothing to stop it, you may as well just sign up to work for the criminals.
I still think your TV example is walking the line. You recording somethign for your own viewing later is the logic of the law... sharing it with others via mass distribution is never how it was intended. At that point, you have made yourself and the distribution channel a network. There is no way it was ever intended to work in that manner. You also didn't buy the right to the TV show, you bought the right to view the show when it was delivered via the cable network. Re-distribution is logically outside of those lines.