On Oct 5, 4:29 pm, 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...mq1nAD8S2RF4OM
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? 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.
Do you really see that as analogous? Wow.
So if someone broke into a library and stole CDs, the library is
guilty of piracy?
BTW, 2pid, you imply that you paid for your CD, then burned it onto
your hard drive. I don't think these people are buying very many CDs.
and a lynching for the idiots on the jury.
In what way do you disagree with them?
Ridiculous penalties designed to warn others.
Is it her burden to be the vehicle of RIAA warnings?
Are you suggesting there was bribery?