Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks
I wasn't claiming that you have to be a lawyer.. but they certainly understand the law 1000 times better than we do.
Point well made though and I do agree with you.
My intent was hoping that people read the court filing (especially Gideon) and recognize that rather than assumption and conjecture, there is legitimacy for what the RIAA is doing and case law to back up their position.
|
I have never rejected the legitimacy of what they are doing, because that is exactly the act i have been arguing they should be doing-- going after the INFRINGING SEEDER directly.
What i reject is your arguement that this win grants the RIAA and you more rights than explicitly specified in the case.
(see your arguements that KAZZA and by extension Torrents/ torrentspy, isohunt, TPB etc) are liable.
This lady never produced any proof she owned the content in question
and secondly RIAA produced proof of infringement that exceed previously defined speculative claim (Interscope v. Rodriguez)
she is exactly the type of seeder who should be removed from the p2p network so that fair use people like myself can enjoy the technology available.