Just because you say it over and over again, doesn’t make it more
true.

P2P software is legal.
It is legal to download CC and pd over P2P.
It is legal to DL some copyrighted material over p2p ( game company free DL, etc .)

In canada ( where you are at ) the blank media levy makes DL LEGAL .
Canada’s governing body says that, which is why NO ONE HAS BEEN SUED in CANADA.

You’re just sore because Jon won’t let you spam the boards with your corporate
shill posts.

It’s another proof to the theory that the ONLY people who support the corporate position
get paid by them in some fashion, from Sam I Am ( who admitted to being in a well
paid position in the industry ) to bottom feeders like you who get a salary to viral market
the next label online failure .

You’ve failed
Get over it.

Now, the reason is, that the defendant was using an implausible defense. If her lawyer had attacked the claim from the perspective of proving distribution, then it would have been quickly won. After all, they didn’t prove that she distributed any copyrighted works to the public; And we all know that copyright law requires actual proof of distribution. No proof of distribution means no case.

Hint: THE SOFTWARE IS SET UP TO STORE DOWNLOADS IN THE SHARED FOLDER BY DEFAULT.

Hint 2: THE SOFTWARE HAS SHARING ENABLED BY DEFAULT.

Hint 3, since you’re obviously unable to make logical connections: IF DOWNLOADS ARE AUTOMATICALLY PLACED IN THE SHARED FOLDER, AND SHARING IS AUTOMATICALLY TURNED ON, YOU ARE MADE TO SHARE WITHOUT YOUR DIRECT PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE UNLESS YOU EXPLICITLY KNOW ABOUT THE SOFTWARE AND THE TECHNOLOGY, AND CHOOSE TO TURN IT ALL OFF MANUALLY.

And, as another user points out, it automatically requests to copy all share-able media on your machine INTO the shared folder on top of all that.

The fact that the software didn’t even exist on her hard drive combined with the replacement of the hard drive for defects before any RIAA legal actions had been brought to her attention pretty much wrecks the RIAA’s case. They got a discovery order for her drive, she handed it over, they didn’t find anything that could incriminate her in a clear and convincing manner. A judge that is sympathetic to the RIAA or just plain ignorant of the text that is our copyright laws told the jury to find her guilty if she duplicated the songs in any way, regardless of the purpose for the duplication and the explicitly legalized purposes for which such duplications can be made. The RIAA threw her a question that would make her sound like she messed up and admitted to breaking the law when in fact it doesn’t, but a common man on the jury is not typically educated about the law beyond filing their own tax returns, if that, and the judge’s poor wording plus the lawyer’s trick question plus the uneducated jury plus the fact that Jammie is a member of a class of people that is disliked in her geographic area because of issues such as hunting rights PLUS the fact that the jury was entirely composed of members of the opposing class of people…EQUALS THE TRAGEDY WE HAVE SEEN HERE.

Now you can take your vienna-packin’ ass on home. You’ve been exposed, cry a little and learn from it, but for fuck’s sake, man, stop making such an ass of yourself in a public forum, especially one where the readers combined know far more than you do and can tear your sadly mistaken “facts” apart like a puma on a goat.

Atlantic v. Howell
and
Capitol v. Thomas

and then

” but this lady had it coming. ”

Looks like she had it coming as much as you do.

” if youre going to fight the RIAA, you do it with a better defense and more money. ”

and the RIAA know this too.
that’s why they only target college kids and the poor.
no way someone like that could ever afford to challenge a conglomeration
of 4 large international corporations. heh, why do you think they avoid Harvard like the plague ?

Would it surprise you if the RIAA set you up? Would it surprise you if they created an account with the same name as yours and loaded it up themselves?

hmmm, intersting.

It seems that all they actually have to do is have an IP that points to you.
Since you already admitted to leeching from the networks, that would mean you
have files on your drive.
Since that was what ultimately convicted Jammie, you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on
either. You couldn’t prove you never distributed them, and the RIAA doesn’t have
to prove it either

All they need to do is supoena you, and check your drive.
You would then need to prove your innocence, and thats not cheap, and that’s what they
want .

i’m starting to see a lot of packing vienna names show up on the networks .

this coulod be fun.

prove it’s not you … lol

if she didnt know anything about computers, she could have probably gotten off with “i didnt know it was there”. if she didnt have a stance on file-sharing, she may have gotten off. but she made it a point to say that she knew plenty about computers, as well as write a paper about the whole napster thing years back. she had an obvious stance on sharing, and the jury saw that. they didnt believe her statements that “i didnt know it was installed” and her comments during the trial incriminated her. when asked “would it surprise you if the tereastar@kazaa user had all the same music you do” she said it wouldnt surprise her. she got herself into that and didnt even try to defend herself with anything. and now she is getting what she deserves.

i dont condone what the RIAA does, or who they charge (some of them shouldnt have ever been sent letters) but this lady had it coming.

if youre going to fight the RIAA, you do it with a better defense and more money. jammie is now the poster child for fighting the RIAA, and she isnt a very good one.

A username is not a fingerprint as an IP address is not.
A person who actually knows internet basics would know that.

As was pointed out before ….
no, she didn’t have Kazaa installed, and they never had any proof of that
I read the transcripts too. As is typical in these trials, she was guilty and had to
prover her innocence.

Could you prove yours ?

Before you answer, consider that in the Lindor case, the RIAA
had her drive, found no evidence of Kazaa ever being on the drive ( once again )
and yet claim that this is proof that she had kazaa ???

huh ?

The real idea behind the cases is to cause fear.
They know they have no proof.
They have money.
Money enough to bully those that don’t.

Could you prove YOUR innocence ?

Keep in mind …

They have sued the dead, and people that have never had a computer,
based on erroneous IP data, so yes, it COULD happen to you.

Could you prove YOUR innocence ?

Did she know KaZaa was on her computer? Possible, but I find it highly unlikely someone would knowingly go to court to fight the RIAA if they knew they were sharing online. Why take that risk? IMO, she didn’t even know the program was on her computer to begin with and didn’t know it was sharing files.

As for the trolls, name calling shows how mature you truly are and the more you spout your unsubstantiated (big word, I know, look it up) crap, the more you show how pathetic the RIAA is for hiring you to do their dirty work.

if she didnt have kazaa installed, why did they know her username was tereastar@kazaa?

she did have it installed at the time she was caught, she just gave them a new hard drive cause the one she was sharing “needed to be fixed”

shes a liar and thought she could pull a win out. she underestimated the jury and got pwnt. ggkthxbuy

1 – under oath, Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer stated, “when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.”

2- RIAA lawyer Gabriel asked Thomas whether she had ever burned CDs, either for herself, or to give away to friends.“Did you get permission from the copyright owners to do that?” Gabriel asked. “No,” Thomas responded.

3- Judge issues instructions to Jury that read;
One who reproduces a copyrighted work during the term of the copyright infringes the copyright, unless licensed by the copyright owner and if you find that that copyright was infringed by defendant, then you should find for plaintiff.

4 – Jury finds her Guilty becuase she admitted to making copies.

There was no need to prove she had any files in any shared folder – they GOT her on infringement because of making a copy without authorization which they failed to mention isn’t even illegal in Fair Use.

The RIAA is being very cleverly successful in their media campaign to say its due to sharing, to the point where even David Kravets uses the line:
” for unlawfully sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa file-sharing network” .

That’s not really true.
She was found guilty of infringement for admitting to making copies – not for sharing them for which there was no proof.
The RIAA wants to send the message – “Settle out of Court or we’ll get you for SHARING too”

and that’s my opinion

She didn’t have Kazaa on her computer.
Ths forensic specialist did not find it on the drive or any trace in the registry.
She had proof from best buy that the drive was replace well before she
recieved any notice of any suit.

No proof like what you are discussing existed in this trial.

Did you read any of the trial reports or transcripts ?

” so no, the jury were not idiots. ”

Yeah, they kindof were.

“and Dredd you are just like all the other retards who cant think for yourself. ”

Most of us can not only think for ourselves, we can read too, and take the time to
do so.
We spend a LOT of time at sites that publicly have all of th trial documentation.
We go to a lot of sites that have a lot of differing viewpoints on this.
We don’t just accept the RIAA at face value, nor do we simply accept mainstream
media’s take on this.

We research.

( for example look at some of the links ‘Reader’s Write’ have provided )

I’d ask for your ‘backing’ but you have none, you’ve demonstrated that by
simply regurgitating the lie oft repeated.

No more time to feed trolls.

Enjoy your day

January 7th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
” she was guilty cause she was sharing her ish. ”

Actually, the RIAA were never able to prove that.
The Judghe made it so the RIAA didn’t have to.

dude, immediately after downloading something you are able to start sharing that file. she didnt have her kazaa set up to not share files at all. the proof is in the nature of the network. she was found to have files in her SHARED folder. she didnt put them there to not be shared. it doesnt matter if one user or one million users downloaded those files, she put them in a place they could be accessed.

if you leave a box of stolen stuff out on the street that says TAKE ME PLEASE you have an intent to give it away. and you better be willing to accept the consequences. she had intent to share, which is good enough for infringement. the jury was smart enough to understand the concept of a p2p file sharing network. it was created to share files. there is not a single user of p2p who does not also share files. so no, the jury were not idiots.

and Dredd you are just like all the other retards who cant think for yourself. rather than saying “yeah, she did it, and she was stupid enough to fight te RIAA” you try to rationalize things like “the judge was given an incentive to push guilty”. where is your ammo for that comment? the random name calling just gives me laughs at work. where is your backing Dredd?

Question is…
Did the Judge give misleading / false instructions to the jury?

Yes or No.

” uhhh the evidence was that she did it you moron. ”

It’s easy to tell who has no real ammo in any debate.

Empty
Name
Calling.

Actually, the RIAA were never able to prove that.
The Judghe made it so the RIAA didn’t have to.

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 14
The act of downloading copyrighted sound recordings on
a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright
owners, violates the copyright owners’ exclusive
reproduction right.