Well this is it, the first RIAA lawsuit to be brought before a jury trial. It's only the first day and we already have some interesting testimony on what the labels say is "Stealing" An excellent recap of the first day here http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...trial-gets-under-way-with-jury-selection.html The jury contains such diverse elements as an independent musician, a teacher, 2 people who do not own computers and have never surfed, and a steelworker. Whatever the outcome, both parties have indicated they are in it for the long haul. What do you think will be the final outcome?
Martin (if he decides to return) and Red should have some an opinion or 2 to offer. That is, unless they used them all on the 800 page thread about this same general subject a few months back. :hihi:
the little i read about the case made me believe the issue was whether thomas was in possession of the computer that did the filesharing. evidently, thomas replaced the harddrive just before the filesharing started. but if the issue is what is stealing, the riaa will have a hard time convincing a jury that making a copy for yourself is stealing.
Apparently not. It took the jury only fours hours to rule against Thomas and for the music industry. The issue wasn't making copies for one's self. It was uploading them for others to steal. It was clearly organized theft of copyrighted material. RIAA trial verdict is in: jury finds Thomas liable for infringement
i found the verdict to be a travesty. she should appeal that her lawyer sux. it was basically unquestioned that the defendant did the illegal activity under the isp and username. its estimated that over 10% of pcs have had unknown/unintended software uploaded to them that can enable other parties to use the isp in proxy. the prosecutors got off easy. the penalty is pretty harsh, hay? over $9k/song, ouch.
im not so sure about that. seems that part of the crime was downloading. i dont know the specifics of what was done, or about kazaa, but i think most users would download and not know that they are also providing files for uploading. at least limewire used to work that way.
I know making a copy for yourself does not feel like stealing, but believe me it is. The record company, the recording artist and the people who created the recording are entitled to just reimbursement for their labor, just like you and I are. If someone takes a product of their labor (in this case a recording) and does not pay for it, it is stealing. Plain and simple. It is no different from walking out of a store with something without paying for it. The prosecutiion will have to make the jury understand that it is stealing and why it is stealing, and that could be the biggest challenge for them because the technical aspects.
The industry does not care if personal copies are made. If you bought a legitimate CD, you can make a cassette for the car, put a copy on your computer, and put it on your iPod legally. But making copies to share illegally with others is what they have to stop.
