Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
yes, but you are too stubborn to understand the WHY of it all.
24 files, in her share directory, which she had no rights to in any way shape or form. They weren't required, as a result, to prove actually distribution, just intent, plus the obvious possession of music files she didn't have ANY rights to.
It comes down to "slam dunk". She doesn't have any rights, they shouldn't be on her system at all for any reason, and she is sharing them. DING DING DING!
There is no reason to take the time to prove the other 1690+ violations. $220,000 for someone like this is more than enough punishment, and shows other file leeches that they can't get away with it so easy.
=-=-=-=
|
the point is she did not only have 24 songs in her share folder, she had downloaded and shared 21,000 songs
you are trying to extend the ruling for those 24 songs to argue that all the other sharing is also just as illegal, and that is NOT WHAT THIS CASE PROVED.
the RIAA wanted to avoid the fair use arguement for using KAZAA to recover lost files that she had a right too.
at best they gave up the right to make the claim you are trying to make
at worst they actually ceded the point that it was "fair use" right of recovery.
YOU DON"T HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE THE CLAIM IT IS NOT until you try that exact situation and the COURT RECOGNIZE YOU ARE RIGHT.