In article . com,
ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 2:52 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 2:13 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,
ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:32 am, Jenn wrote:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g..._RTmq1nAD8S2RF
4OM
Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial
This penalty is just plain ridiculous.
Is there a defense fund for her appeal?
How about a fine for her incompetent attorney
In what way is he incompetent?
All they had was an IP and Kaazu UserID.
No physical evidence that it was her computer and
no evidence she intentionally made the music available.
Details are limited but if she didn't buy the music and put
it on her comp, only downloaded and left it in the share
directory to be passed on...is she really quilty of sharing
copyrighted music?
Yes. She downloaded the music illegally.
But that wasn't what she was convicted of IIUC.
Seems true.
It's clear when you download,
install, and register at Kazaa that the default directory allows that
music to be shared.
You sound experienced. Downloading much?
As it's a huge issue among my students, I once went to the site and
downloaded the software to see how it works. I've never downloaded
anything illegally.
Anyway, what I wrote above is true it is clear when you join what
you are doing and how it works.
Illegal downloading but not the
intentional sharing which is the default status of
installing Kaaza.
You copy all your CD to a hard drive and some
hacker busts into your system and tells all
his hacker buddies....you're guilty.
No one "busted" into her system.
Kaaza did.
No. Again, they make it clear that the default directory is a "shared
music" folder. If you simply rip your own CDs to any other folder
besides "shared music", it's not available to those who "shaaarrrreee"
with you.
and a lynching for the idiots on the jury.
In what way do you disagree with them?
Ridiculous penalties designed to warn others.
The jury had nothing to do with that.
Then its the judge.
There you go. So, if the penalties were those prescribed by law...?