Quote:
Originally Posted by wootpr0n
If you ask me, I think that the jury are a bunch of idiots. Or they hate native people.
She probably (>50%) stole the songs, which is weird since she also bought a lot of CDs. It just goes to show that the RIAA is suing their own customers.
I know that if you infringe on copyrights there must be penalties, but holy shit! I mean, I don't think that they need to be going after normal people.
I am surprised that nobody posted this yet. I figured there'd be a 2 page discussion on it by now.
gideongallery would whine about how this is a gross violation of her privacy and how she was the victim. And then Jim Gunn would make fun of time shifting. And Paul Markham would say how we need strong copyright laws. And then Robbie would make fun of gideongallery's terrible sentence structure.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...jammie-thomas/ |
it was posted in the middle of one of my other threads.
1. they went after for 24 songs she did no buy (leaving her alone for the 1000s that she did buy) so there is no timeshfting/backup etc fair use right to talk about
2. it kazza so she was giving away a complete working copy of the file (grokster case applies)
she is only knocking down bogus precedents (make available)
she still could get off on the next appeal because the judges direct went to far.(again)
The entire evidence against her is an extrapolated number of violations based on an Authorized transaction (the music industry rep downloaded from her folder)
it iffy (no fair use arguement) but win or lose she should be able to knock down that bogus precedent as well.