Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks
I may have missed it, but what in this ruling is making your point. I could show you lots and lots of cases and say hey.. read them.... yeah.. whatever....LOL.. Wait.. I did do that didn't.. Well I did read the RIAA v Jammie Thomas and RIAA did win.. which means their arguments against distribution were valid for the time being.. which puts this as the most relevant case until the appeal is held.
|
ok let look at the case in question
1. "The questioning then turned to her CD-ripping habits. In her deposition, Thomas said that she ripped no more than six or seven CDs per day"
assuming only a month (which was the time frame for the case in question) with 10 songs per cd that would be 600-700 per day for a grand total 21,000songs shared, she was only guilty for 24 songs. If "fair use" was as weak as you say it is, if copyright law was as strong as you say it was then she ADMITTED TO 21,000 violations and should have been convicted of a lot more violations, SHE WAS NOT. That the point i am making
AND THAT IS THE POINT YOU ARE IGNORING.
you are trying to expand the case to mean a lot more than it actually does. I have no objection to this ruling because only convicted her of copyright infringement for material she had bought no rights too. I believe that such an act is an infringement, and i WANT YOU TO TAKE THOSE PEOPLE OUT OF THE NETWORK so that i am only sharing with PEOPLE WHO DO HAVE A RIGHT TO THE CONTENT.