Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
because of course ignorance of the law is an excuse right
|
no because she didn't even have the skill to use kazza in the first place, it was not her act of infringement that is the issue.
Quote:
lol BREAKING NEWS , lawsuits only for the guilty.
Thats the whole point of the courts silly rabbit.
This whole "steal copyright material first , cry when you get caught later" attitude has to be stopped. Make sure the content is your before you take it.
|
and when lenz vs universal is finally finished the legal expense of getting it wrong will be the RIAA paying all the legal expenses of all the people who were not really guilty.
So for example when the RIAA sued a printer (spoofed by a hacker) or a dead guy (wireless hacked by hacker) the RIAA not the innocent family members should have to foot the bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
If you think all these people are innocent you're fucked in the head. It would have been cheaper for her just to buy the damned songs in the first place. I mean seriously 99 cents. How fucking cheap can people get?
clueless? I pretty sure MOTS people that download crap form the internet know EXACTLY what they are doing is wrong. You have to be some serious kind of stupid to actually assume that downloading a song or movie or TV show for FREE ( especially form a site with say PIRATE in it's name )is perfectly legal when every other legal form of that same song/movies/tv show has a cost.
|
your so right
how can anyone believe using the DVD recorder to make a backup of your music, or ripping a cd to your ipod is perfectly legal when it has a cost on itunes.
Because the courts established that it is fair use that why.
Of course that is totally irrelevent to this case because the mother was not guilty her kids were, her legal cost were unjustly applied to her and should be given back in full by the RIAA.
and in the case of the printer and the dead guy, the owner was not guilty of any infringement a hacker hijacking their internet was.