not trying to cause trouble but......

seannash

so i never really go into the oldschool/asylum thread much but i popped in there recently and there seems to be an awful lot of filesharing going on.

now i dont really give a **** about them doing it but i know that if its even mentioned around here that its an immediately made clear its not allowed on boards.

so how have the oldschoolers gotten away with it.
sure its old material but its still copyrighted right.

if there turning a blind eye thats cool and you can delete this thread:D

BaZmO*

seannash wrote: »

so i never really go into the oldschool/asylum thread much but i popped in there recently and there seems to be an awful lot of filesharing going on.

now i dont really give a **** about them doing it but i know that if its even mentioned around here that its an immediately made clear its not allowed on boards.

so how have the oldschoolers gotten away with it.
sure its old material but its still copyrighted right.

if there turning a blind eye thats cool and you can delete this thread:D

Should've really just PM'd a mod rather than draw attention to it.

As for the filesharing, most of it (if not all of it) seems to be old deleted tracks and mix tapes so it's not really as bad as someone uploading the latest Beatport Top 10

seanybiker

its still copyrighted though isnt it? How is it not as bad. Says me with tonnes of movies, software, albums etc lol. Busting balls today

BaZmO*

seanybiker wrote: »

its still copyrighted though isnt it? How is it not as bad. Says me with tonnes of movies, software, albums etc lol. Busting balls today

Not as bad as in the sense that it's not possible to buy most of the tracks anymore.
But yeah it's still copyright.

Right, I'm off to watch the latest Transformers movie on my Home Cinema System............

joker77

Most of it is on really minor labels, a lot of which don't exist any more. I'd say it's about risk, or lack of - nobody is going to chase them about it.

Starfox

BaZmO* wrote: »

Not as bad as in the sense that it's not possible to buy most of the tracks anymore.
But yeah it's still copyright.

Right, I'm off to watch the latest Transformers movie on my Home Cinema System............

Im so jealous

seannash

joker77 wrote: »

Most of it is on really minor labels, a lot of which don't exist any more. I'd say it's about risk, or lack of - nobody is going to chase them about it.

that may be true for most but theres alot of stuff that isnt.old songs on labels that are still around and still copyrighted.
like i said im dont care really but its so blatantly in your face when you go on that thread that it seems strange to me that its going on on boards of all places.
one of the last posts was about someone uploading an agnelli and nelson track from 98.
that **** is definitely copyrighted.
ah well

joker77

seannash wrote: »

that may be true for most but theres alot of stuff that isnt.old songs on labels that are still around and still copyrighted.
like i said im dont care really but its so blatantly in your face when you go on that thread that it seems strange to me that its going on on boards of all places.
one of the last posts was about someone uploading an agnelli and nelson track from 98.
that **** is definitely copyrighted.
ah well

Yea I know where you're coming from with that - it's hard to know why so much of it is tolerated in one thread.

The music is out there on the net though, and with the older stuff a lot of the time it's easier to get it through filesharing than through buying it, as BaZmo* said most of the tracks would be deleted at this stage.

I take it seeing you produce music yourself, from your point of view you would be strongly against file sharing?

derra

seannash wrote: »

so i never really go into the oldschool/asylum thread much but i popped in there recently and there seems to be an awful lot of filesharing going on.

now i dont really give a **** about them doing it but i know that if its even mentioned around here that its an immediately made clear its not allowed on boards.

so how have the oldschoolers gotten away with it.
sure its old material but its still copyrighted right.

if there turning a blind eye thats cool and you can delete this thread:D

.mp3 attachments etc are not allowed on Boards.ie so therefore Boards.ie are not actually holding the music on the server.
The likes of YouTube etc is an example where labels concentrate on, SoulSeek to a certain extent etc..

joker77

In fairness yea - the files themselves aren't shared on boards, it would be sites like rapidshare, megaupload etc that would get in trouble. The scale of 'facilitating' that is done on boards isn't exactly like what happened with piratebay

BaZmO*

Good point actually.

seannash

well no they wont be held accountable like rapidshare or megaupload but my point is if i post a link to a download of someartist album or track in any other post id be warned about it and the post would be removed.yet people in the oldschool thread are doing it all the time.

i know even discussing it on here isnt really allowed either

BaZmO*

You really don't like the Oldskool thread do you

seannash

derra wrote: »

.mp3 attachments etc are not allowed on Boards.ie so therefore Boards.ie are not actually holding the music on the server.
The likes of YouTube etc is an example where labels concentrate on, SoulSeek to a certain extent etc..

i GUARANTEE if i put a link up to a track ive uploaded to any hosting site it would be taken down.
file sharing is swapping links to files for download no matter where they are on the net.by your definition no person who doesnt own a website would be accused of piracy.

it would be like being caught with a pirated dvd and not accepting responsibility because you bought it from someone else

joker77

joker77 wrote: »

I take it seeing you produce music yourself, from your point of view you would be strongly against file sharing?

So Sean - I take it you are strongly against file sharing yea?

seannash

BaZmO* wrote: »

You really don't like the Oldskool thread do you

its not that.i actualy dont ever go in there but i was just browsing and clicked into it and saw that people were posting links.
boards is notoriously strict about this so i was wondering how it could be happening.
you gotta admit its a double standard.

seannash

joker77 wrote: »

So Sean - I take it you are strongly against file sharing yea?

no i never said that,you implied that because i make music im against it.
i simply asked how come i see people get warned for posting links but people are doing it in that thread all the time.
is that not a reasonable question

BaZmO*

seannash wrote: »

you gotta admit its a double standard.

Kinda. But do you think DJ Mixes should also be banned then?

joker77

I think the issue is not really with the old skool / asylum thread though - it's just because it's so big and there is so much posting of links that it kind of skews the picture.

Plenty of people put up stuff on youtube that infringes on copyright, and there are numerous youtube links on boards, not least in the several youtube threads in this forum!

In the boxing forum, where I post irregularly, people sometimes share downloaded vids of fights. I'm sure this kind of 'filesharing', or facilitating, goes on in other forums where people share an interest.

I think to pick out 1 single thread for doing it smacks to me, a little, of self-preservation from an artist. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you own up to it?

joker77

seannash wrote: »

no i never said that,you implied that because i make music im against it.
i simply asked how come i see people get warned for posting links but people are doing it in that thread all the time.
is that not a reasonable question

Sorry, no, I didn't mean to imply it, was just asking the question.

And sorry, I didn't realise people were warned for posting links in other threads but somehow the old skool / asylum thread was immune to this.

seannash

BaZmO* wrote: »

Kinda. But do you think DJ Mixes should also be banned then?

nope this has been discussed many times before.dj mixes are done by people who have (presumedly) bought the tunes from a reputable source and in fact serve to promote the songs rather than inhibit there sale.

its a bit like radio.sure people could record the songs from radio but the vast majority of people buying dance music are buying it so they can have it in its entirety to dj with it or just to listen to the whole track without interuption

joker77

seannash wrote: »

nope this has been discussed many times before.dj mixes are done by people who have (presumedly) bought the tunes from a reputable source and in fact serve to promote the songs rather than inhibit there sale.

its a bit like radio.sure people could record the songs from radio but the vast majority of people buying dance music are buying it so they can have it in its entirety to dj with it or just to listen to the whole track without interuption

It's not really like radio though. Radio stations pay a fee for every song they play. DJ mixes don't.

If I record a mix, and put it up on the net, it's the same as sharing the song itself from a copyright point of view

seannash

joker77 wrote: »

I think the issue is not really with the old skool / asylum thread though - it's just because it's so big and there is so much posting of links that it kind of skews the picture.

Plenty of people put up stuff on youtube that infringes on copyright, and there are numerous youtube links on boards, not least in the several youtube threads in this forum!

In the boxing forum, where I post irregularly, people sometimes share downloaded vids of fights. I'm sure this kind of 'filesharing', or facilitating, goes on in other forums where people share an interest.

I think to pick out 1 single thread for doing it smacks to me, a little, of self-preservation from an artist. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you own up to it?

youtube is a differemt ball game all together.people are posting direct links to downloads of copyrighted material.

im simply saying if i upload the latest beatport top 10 on some hosting site and post the link here you can be sure ill be pm,d and the post will be removed.
this is what people are doing though.if it was in any other thread the issue would be the same

joker77

I understand, my point would be that it goes on in other threads.

Have you tried posting up a recent track from beatport and seeing what happens?

I'm just asking are you working on pure assumptions or do you have an example?

seannash

joker77 wrote: »

It's not really like radio though. Radio stations pay a fee for every song they play. DJ mixes don't.

If I record a mix, and put it up on the net, it's the same as sharing the song itself from a copyright point of view

i meant its like radio in the sense you can rip the song from radio.
dj mixes dont hurt sales.its a bigger form of promotion rather than piracy.

if you hear a song you like on a dj mix you will go and purchase it.if your given a high quality download of a song you like you wont go and buy it from a download site because you have it already in its entirity

seannash

joker77 wrote: »

I understand, my point would be that it goes on in other threads.

Have you tried posting up a recent track from beatport and seeing what happens?

I'm just asking are you working on pure assumptions or do you have an example?

its been done plenty of time by noobs and everyone knows its against boards rules.
i dont do it because i know not to as does anyone whos been a regular on here

joker77

seannash wrote: »

dj mixes dont hurt sales.its a bigger form of promotion rather than piracy

That's your opinion, and one which I'd agree with, but if we're speaking from a legal / copyright point of view, it's piracy.

So just to reiterate, the members mixes would contain far, far more material that the powers that be would be interested in than the old skool / asylum thread.

joker77

seannash wrote: »

its been done plenty of time by noobs and everyone knows its against boards rules.
i dont do it because i know not to as does anyone whos been a regular on here

I'd like some examples

If you like I'll go fine numerous posts where people put stuff up on megaupload / rapidshare on other threads /forums?

seannash

joker77 wrote: »

That's your opinion, and one which I'd agree with, but if we're speaking from a legal / copyright point of view, it's piracy.

cool,boards stance on dj mixes is that they allow it.
filesharing they dont(and yes this extends to posting links to hosting sites:D)

look its getting a bit out of hand and as no mods have chimed in i reckon its a special case thats being ignored and once its contained in the oldschool thread there fine with that.
it just struck me as strange that it was so blatant when other incidents had been removed

seannash

joker77 wrote: »

I'd like some examples

If you like I'll go fine numerous posts where people put stuff up on megaupload / rapidshare on other threads /forums?

well the posts get removed.
i dont think i need to post examples,most people have seen it happen on here.
i dont really go outside of the music section on boards but like i said round here its not tolerated at all.

joker77

seannash wrote: »

well the posts get removed.
i dont think i need to post examples,most people have seen it happen on here.
i dont really go outside of the music section on boards but like i said round here its not tolerated at all.

Fair enough, I just mustn't have come across it yet.

joker77

seannash wrote: »

cool,boards stance on dj mixes is that they allow it.
filesharing they dont(and yes this extends to posting links to hosting sites:D)

look its getting a bit out of hand and as no mods have chimed in i reckon its a special case thats being ignored and once its contained in the oldschool thread there fine with that.
it just struck me as strange that it was so blatant when other incidents had been removed

Ah it's not getting out of hand at all - just a healthy debate!

I think the Members mixes thread is much more of a special case, being mostly new, current and even sometimes unreleased material, than the old skool thread.

jtsuited

Here's the thing : there's a huge grey area when it comes to mixes being posted online. This is only get even messier due to beatport selling mixes now.

I've seen many big producer/dj's post links to their mixes on their twitter pages (sometimes even torrents), so they don't seem to mind people posting their mixes. Posting torrents to releases is a completely different kettle of fish.

I have seen plenty of illegal links posted on the oldskool thread, and have always wondered why it's tolerated, particularly when boards has a zero tolerance policy on such issues.

francois

jtsuited wrote: »

Here's the thing : there's a huge grey area when it comes to mixes being posted online. This is only get even messier due to beatport selling mixes now.

I've seen many big producer/dj's post links to their mixes on their twitter pages (sometimes even torrents), so they don't seem to mind people posting their mixes. Posting torrents to releases is a completely different kettle of fish.

I have seen plenty of illegal links posted on the oldskool thread, and have always wondered why it's tolerated, particularly when boards has a zero tolerance policy on such issues.

A thorny question, but if you are going to ban links posted to individual tracks, you may as well ban member mixes, as the only difference is there are many instead of one track.
Same goes for copyright stuff on youtube, as there is software to strip out the track from the video and convert to mp3. Not forgetting .torrent files either...
However, is a link in itselfan infringment of copyright or is it just a link which mayfacilitate infringment?
Surely it is whoever is hosting the file who is in the wrong? I haven't seen (yet) IRMA, PRC RIAA etc going after rapidshare etc.
If you do ban these, people will only PM each other or put them elsewhere regardless.
The genie started by shawn fanning is out of the bottle, so banning a few links to (mainly old, low quality) files and mixes won't really achieve much
Finally looking forward to psychoville at 10 tonight!

derra

francois

derra wrote: »

:D:D:D

jtsuited

francois wrote: »

A thorny question, but if you are going to ban links posted to individual tracks, you may as well ban member mixes, as the only difference is there are many instead of one track.

hmmm not really.

It's taken for granted in dance music that there is a huge difference between a file containing a track that's released at high quality as a release, and a track in the context of a mix where the first 1/2 minutes and last 1/2 minutes aren going to be mixed with some other record.

Also most dj mixes (if not all) are of significantly lower audio quality than an actual track. Posessing a mix containing a certain track is not gonna prevent you legally buying said track (in fact it'll increase your chances of buying it).

Having an illegal copy of it will. That's the huge difference.

francois

jtsuited wrote: »

hmmm not really.

It's taken for granted in dance music that there is a huge difference between a file containing a track that's released at high quality as a release, and a track in the context of a mix where the first 1/2 minutes and last 1/2 minutes aren going to be mixed with some other record.

Also most dj mixes (if not all) are of significantly lower audio quality than an actual track. Posessing a mix containing a certain track is not gonna prevent you legally buying said track (in fact it'll increase your chances of buying it).

Having an illegal copy of it will. That's the huge difference.

it doesn't matter, the copyright is not yours regardless of quality surely? If you use a quote from a copyright book or a part of a copyright image it is still copyright no?
Yes studies have shown that-in general- illegal downloaders (insert millions of people here) tend to buy more copyright music, it still doesn't make that bad quality track anyway less illegal.
You may argue the finer points about it but the paradigm about copyright has changed utterly in the digital world, so a new approach is needed-DRM has been tried and failed miserably, what is needed is that new paradigm.
At the end of the day, unpalatable as it may be, nobody is going to pay for something that you can get for free, Don't get me wrong, I think royalties should go to an artist eventually, but how do you generate that when millions won't and don't give a **** about them?
For the record I released a mix CD back in '96, I tracked down the publishers/artists/labels and paid my dues. To be fair they were all small and either did it for free or for a nominal fee

jonny68

I checked on here without logging on and seen this thread, a completely pointless thread if there ever was one, most, if not all of the uploads on the Asylum/Old Skool Thread is music that is widely available for free online anyway so what is the problem?

The Asylum/Old Skool thread is absolutely fantastic, it's not only relived memories for many people retired from raving but it has reunited people (myself included) with people who have lost contact with over the years, without wanting to cause trouble but is the scene thesedays so stale and mundane that certain people who might not have been around for the glory years feel somewhat threatened in some way that they have to slate old skool dance music,etc, just an observation not meaning to cause any sort of disruption at all.

seannash

again i gotta say,ive seen people post links to downloads of current material and it IMMEDIATELY gets taken down and the person gets told off.

go look at the oldschool thread now.there a guy about to upload an agnelli and nelson track and also someone else going to upload a prodigy track.
these tracks are available to purchase and not hard to find if you look around.

our personal views dnt come into this regarding dj mixes or rapidshare links.
BOARDS view on it is dj mixes are fine direct downloads arent.
this is true yeah?

jtsuited

If someone just reported every post in that thread that is linking to illegal material, we'd soon have an answer for the question in the OP.

seannash

jtsuited wrote: »

If someone just reported every post in that thread that is linking to illegal material, we'd soon have an answer for the question in the OP.

i dont think the mods go in there to be honest.
i think some people are missing the point in this though.

if i started a thread named current tunes and started posting links it wouldnt be allowed but people are posting material that is available to download on sites or buy in shops in that thread.

but yeah i havent gotten an answer yet.its no biggie really.i reckon its getting ignored since its contained in one thread

jtsuited

seannash wrote: »

i dont think the mods go in there to be honest.
i think some people are missing the point in this though.

the reported posts show up in a 'reported posts' forum that only mods, admins, etc have access to. they don't need to go near the forum, let alone the thread to see it.

joker77

Lads, I really think you are just starting to pick on one particular thread because you've got something against that thread. Plenty of other threads contain the same amount of infringement from a legal point of view. (I had a quick look in some other forums and found plenty of links to stuff on rapidshare/megaupload).

Also, the argument about mixes not being in the same category is just downright incorrrect from a legal point of view. When you purchase a track, that does not give you the right to put it in a mix and make it freely available on the internet.

If you've got a bee in your bonnet about the old skool thread, just stay out of it, it's not that hard!

If you don't, and you've got a wider issue about filesharing, take it up with boards.

BaZmO*

Yeah, it's real school tattle tale stuff.

seannash

joker77 wrote: »

Lads, I really think you are just starting to pick on one particular thread because you've got something against that thread. Plenty of other threads contain the same amount of infringement from a legal point of view. (I had a quick look in some other forums and found plenty of links to stuff on rapidshare/megaupload).

Also, the argument about mixes not being in the same category is just downright incorrrect from a legal point of view. When you purchase a track, that does not give you the right to put it in a mix and make it freely available on the internet.

If you've got a bee in your bonnet about the old skool thread, just stay out of it, it's not that hard!

If you don't, and you've got a wider issue about filesharing, take it up with boards.

this has nothing got to do with the fact its in the oldschool section.
on THIS forum there are no other threads allowed to do this at all.
not talking about the other forums.
and seeing as how theres been no mods chiming in like i said earlier they must be turning a blind eye to it.
cool.
i was simply asking a question as to why it was being allowed.if i had issue i could go and report all the posts that contain links to downloaded material but im not going to bother.
if it was going on in another thread my question would be the same.

and yes we all know about the legality of dj mixes but you and i know very well this is a different matter.this is direct downloads of full versions of tracks

KevIRL

Sean - I would have much preferred a PM over this as opposed to thrashing it out in public. It's been a headwrecking past week or so for me on Boards as it is and I'd hope that everyone on here takes everything I'm about to say at face value.

Sharing individual tracks/albums for download that are copyrighted isnt allowed on Boards.ie, it doesnt matter how old or new they are.

Boards members sharing their mixes/DJ mixes not commercially available is fine.

Posting links to youtube of tracks is fine.

The above has been decided over time by the owners of this site, not myself. I dont want to go into my views on it, but suffice to say that if folk really want to get downloadable links there are plenty of places on the net to get them, all I ask is that on this site people abide by the site owners wishes.

Francois makes some good points about grey areas and the rest, but this forum isnt about copyright dicussion.

Thanks for bringing it my attention Sean, although I would have preferred a PM. I'm rarely look at the Oldskool/Aslyum thread as it isnt my thang, but I trust the guys there to do just do their thing, perhaps the line between sharing mixes/tracks got blurred, but I'm about to post over there saying pretty much what I've said in this post.

Finally if anyone has a problem with a post not following the guidelines above, a simple PM or even report post (its the triangle 'warning' sign to the right of posts) will do just great.

joker77

seannash wrote: »

this has nothing got to do with the fact its in the oldschool section.

Really? I think you need to reread your first post!

seannash wrote: »

on THIS forum there are no other threads allowed to do this at all.
not talking about the other forums.
and seeing as how theres been no mods chiming in like i said earlier they must be turning a blind eye to it.
cool.

Regarding other threads, as I said, between mixes and youtube links it's the same thing from a legal point of view.
Regarding mods/admins - KevIRL just answered that.

seannash wrote: »

i was simply asking a question as to why it was being allowed.if i had issue i could go and report all the posts that contain links to downloaded material but im not going to bother.
if it was going on in another thread my question would be the same.

Why did you ask it in such a way about a particular thread, then say that it had nothing to do with that particular thread? It doesn't really make sense, and it just seems like you had an axe to grind.

seannash wrote: »

and yes we all know about the legality of dj mixes but you and i know very well this is a different matter.this is direct downloads of full versions of tracks

Boards have said it's a different matter, but legally it's not.

francois

seannash wrote: »

and yes we all know about the legality of dj mixes but you and i know very well this is a different matter.this is direct downloads of full versions of tracks

Sorry Sean but a copyright track is a copyright track, regardless of whether it is in a mix or not surely

BaZmO*

francois wrote: »

Sorry Sean but a copyright track is a copyright track, regardless of whether it is in a mix or not 'fact'

FYP

BaZmO*

Interesting read (and timing) considering the topic of this thread.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5cPHcxNbw61wli6CVCczuXJYgyQD98TE9RO0

Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

By STEVE KARNOWSKI – 10 hours ago

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.

A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.

Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.

The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.

Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.

Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.

"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."

Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.

Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.

"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said.

In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed what the evidence showed.

An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.

Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.

"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa," Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."

Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to the jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.

His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. He didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, are copyright violations.

This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.

In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.

The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.

Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.

Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol address — the online equivalent of a street address — and to her modem.

He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions to jurors.

Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.

Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for several years.

He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.

"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said.

Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.

The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.

The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.