Windows Live you can share folders between your friends which would more then likely have music in it.

Winamp has a new feature called Winamp Remote in which you can access your music and videos on your computer from anywhere and have them streamed to you. Even on your cell!!! And you can add friends to it and they can listen to yours and you can listen to theirs.

O if i share a picture of Mickey Mouse am I infringing on the copyright of said picture?

As far as Im concerned if you personally rip a cd and upload it for others I would think that is more in the wrong then downloading something from the net and leaving it in the default folder it goes into. Especially when it is not for monitary gain. I wont accept money for music I find for people. I always tell them, if you like the tunes buy the cd or check out a show. I use to have a myspace that was to help support local music but sadly couldnt continue to run it due to lack of time.

The full article here:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/10/spyware_and_cop.html

Also, the judge in the case ruled that jurors may find copyright infringement liability against somebody solely for sharing files on the internet. The RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded the files.”

The RIAA has to prove nearly nothing and they win?

What kind of f*cked up world are we living in? I mean no real ill-feelings to those involved in this decision, but this is an absolutely insane judgement. I tell you, the one thing I would instantly recommend would be a persistent request for evidence of where that settlement money is going - how artists are being reimbursed for their ‘losses’.

break both arms off on everyone associated with RIAA, punishment is way lower then if you would get cought sharing music… thats how INSANE the judgement is, so go and break their arms and beat them up for life…

Because that’s what the jury is saying with this verdict: that RIAA’s damages are $9,250 per song, which is ~9,343 iTunes music store sales. Cut the Apple margins out and the required number would be even higher.

They didn’t prove that she knowingly and willingly engaged in activities that violate copyright law. “Making available” is not enumerated in copyright law as a violation of said law, therefore “making available” is by default legal. If she actually encouraged file transfers from her computer to others, or initiated those transfers herself, she’d be 100% on the hook for it and I’d say she deserved to pay for each one of those copies…but even under civil law, there is a requirement that “clear and convincing” proof of the alleged damages be shown, otherwise the suit is ALWAYS TOSSED because “the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

So, where in this suit did RIAA prove that they suffered ANY actual damages, or more importantly, that copyright law AS IT IS WRITTEN was violated?

And the judge’s instructions are screwed by default simply because his instructions tell the jury to find her guilty for violating a part of the law that does not exist.

Waht you do, sharing CDs is called that, sharing. It was always legal. Even though NO LAW HAS CHANGED changed in close to 100 years in the amrican copyright law. Sharing is now a crime.

My explanation is that laws are meaningless if they are allowed to drift in their meaning and interpretation by judges and juries and judges and juries can hardly understand the laws made confusing by the many contadictory interpretations made in each case involving the law. That is why making available, as you did is one day legal and ilegal the next,

when i buy CDs. something i will not do again, i pass them around among the family and friends, just as these do with me, so they can enjoy the music, without paying for it. i have never her that this conduct is copyright infringement.

can someobe explai why is it that doing the same thing electronically is a crime and why is that justified?

An important question that must be answere is who are the people that write the laws and sit as judges.

The american Copyright Act allowing an award of $150,000 in damages for the act of copying one song even of the actual damages are ZERO, as would be the case if the copied song could not have been purchased in the store for whatever reason by the infringer.

This is like allowing a lifetime jail sentence for taking an old newspaper from a doctor’s office, which is technically theft. Remeber iwhen in California a hungry deambulant got a lifetime jail sentence for not paying a slice of pizza under the absurd three strike rule?

In a nation where sentences built into the law and which are discretionary with the judge or the jury, is like giving atomic bombs to soldiers or a brain damaged president to use as they please, something is awfully wrong.

I hope that Jammie Thomas’s lwayers can still argue the unconstitutionality of the copyright law statutory damages clause. Of course they had to argue this in the case and if it was not argued, the appeals court may not take up the issue. If that is the case, the appeal should be won because the judges’s wrong “make available” instructions are flawed to the core. Of course, appeal courts and Supreme courts are sometimes corrupt too. Just remeber when slavery was “constitutional” in the “land of freedom”, America.

Respect artist??? Please, this has little to do with artists such as me. I’m a n artist and “my label” does not respect my wish that my fans (anyone who copies one of my songs, authorized or not) not be sued for having copied one of my songs. Having spoken to many artists like myself, I know we are split about the issue of suing the fans and customers, but the majority, the same majority that is hardly paid anything by the labels is upset about what the labels are doing.

As to respect for artis, do you know tht when a label sells our recordings to another label, usually for a fat profit, we artists do not share in the proceeds. The labels say we only are paid from the (highly undereported) sale of records in the stores. What a crap.

Please think before speaking on our behalf, Edward Spielman.

I remember as a kid having a VCR and getting excited when the new TV Guide would show up in the mailbox, I would look to see what new movies would premiere on HBO. It didn’t take long and I had boxes and boxes of VCR tapes full of movies recorded off HBO. Three movies to a tape. If I really, really liked a movie and wanted premium quality, I would buy the movie at the store with my allowance. Had a pretty big collection, both HBO recordings and commercial. Don’t recall anyone going crazy or even thinking I was doing something wrong at the time. Today is a different story, the MPAA is seeing to that.

What about used CD stores? Is that copyright infringement? What about people selling old CDs in a yard sale or at a flea market? Is that copyright infringement? What about corny teenagers making “Mix Tapes” for their boyfriend/girlfriend? Is that copyright infringement? The music/movie industry thrived for decades before the MP/RIAA decided to make their own consumers into what they consider criminals. The industry is suffering financially because of their own bully tactics, not “piracy”. Was I a pirate back when I was a kid taping songs off the radio onto my cassette deck? I don’t recall anyone considering that piracy, I sure didn’t feel like a pirate, still don’t. But if they are going to brand me a pirate, I’m gonna be an angry one.

This case has appeal written all over it.

FUCK THE PARASITES!

When you have 20,000 cases running you think the one they do let to go to jury is one they will lose?
I bet more money was spent on reseaching defence lawyers, judges, defendants and eveidence to pick the combination in a case most favourable than what was spent on the case itself.

as someone said earlier, by your definition, by making song available, you can now get sued for lending a CD to a friend

lol, you are talking about the poor artists losing their money? you think any of this judgement will be going to these poor artists you speak of?

you are naive!