US woman fined $222,000 for..

Lemming · 10-10-2007 2:54pm

Manic Moran wrote:

You're making a couple of pretty couragous assertions there.

Firstly, their investigative methods were obviously sufficient to win in a jury trial. If you're saying that a 10-year-old could have done that, then it seems likely that the infringement was pretty darned flagrant and the case was a slam-dunk in which case, frankly, she should have settled. On what is your claim of non-bias on the part of the judge based? And obviously she had the ability to contest the case as it went to a jury trial, and it seems a jury of her peers decided she was wrong in the eyes of the law as well. Where is the coercion on innocent people? Either you're making intellectual property freely available without the owners' permission, or you're not.

NTM

Actually MM, the RIAAfia's "investigative" methods are well documented and the flaws have been widely discussed in tech circles. There are gaping holes in much of their methodology and very little credible proof on the integrity therein. A case was dismissed in Europe over this because the defence team was clued in to the implications. This has yet to happen in the US, and of course, the courts seem to find words coming from whomever has the largest paycheck lawyer most credible it would seem. The RIAAfia are also known to have a large warchest for lobbying, and they do - both politicians and senior justidiciary.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-10-2007 1:07am

enda1 wrote:

I think the point was that somewhere along the line the song was bought.
In a library, does the book cost much more for the library to buy? Something like the videoshop idea?

No.

Actually in some cases like the copyright library in Trinity they get the book free.

Can the RIAA guarantee that when the DRM'd music goes public domain in years to come, they will have copies of the music to distribute ?

US woman fined $222,000 for..

Comments