Comments on: 10,037 people sued by RIAA http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702 p2pnet.net - reader powered Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:43:11 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13511 Reader's Write Sat, 14 May 2005 20:03:10 +0000 #comment-13511 OK folks Please correct me if I am wrong but lets start with why we download music. IMHO CDs are grossly overpriced, the money that we have to pay for them goes mainly to middle men that are not working for the interests of recording artists or music fans. If we buy a pre made CD then we are paying for it’s physical media, It’s production at a factory, the transport and distribution and then the shop that retails it. If we download the music instead then we do not use this supply chain. I download music for free. I would rather pay for it in truth, but I will not pay a download fee that amounts to the same or more as buying the CD because I have used my internet connection, my hard drive, my CD if I choose to burn a backup, my paper and ink if I choose to print attached artwork etc. What percentage of the cost of a CD goes to the recording artist? Please inform me someone! I don’t know what it is but I do know it is very little. We use a supply chain that could (should) be recoding artist-recording studio-server. After that all the costs are the users to meet. What is the value per track (per track is silly, tracks can be from seconds to an hour in length!) if we pay for what we have actually used? (this could be established). I’m writing from the UK, I’m not familiar with this organisation the RIAA, but I understand that they are some Dinosaur organisation, that we probably support by buying CDs anyway , who are out to whack the little copy write violator while ignoring (often due to vested interests no doubt) the huge breach right under their noses. They are also the property of the guys that will loose out when the business of music distribution becomes electronic rather than physical because they will have nothing to do. except become server companies in this respect. The woman in New York who did this has just the right idea “Actually there was one woman in New York who counter sued using the USA's mafia laws, don't know what became of that case though.” I would like to know how she got on. The way to beat these guys into the future is to follow her example! Don’t settle out of court, if you do demand receipts from your favourite artists! Fight these people in every way possible, even if you don’t win you will get positive publicity. Make sure that it costs them far more to do you than they will ever get out of it. How about a voluntary system to pay the true royalty directly to the artist with an explanation of why they are sent the money and a petition to make their material available legally at the right price, heck! we could give them 10% more than they get at the moment… or how about 20% more for the underpaid, struggling artist. In the end you can’t hold back history, and the trouble makers here are historic already, they don’t like it, they have a lot of weight to throw about and they think that intimidation will win the day for them. Prove them wrong. Some direct dialog with artists would be interesting. What do you think? OK folks
Please correct me if I am wrong but lets start with why we download music. IMHO CDs are grossly overpriced, the money that we have to pay for them goes mainly to middle men that are not working for the interests of recording artists or music fans. If we buy a pre made CD then we are paying for it’s physical media, It’s production at a factory, the transport and distribution and then the shop that retails it. If we download the music instead then we do not use this supply chain. I download music for free. I would rather pay for it in truth, but I will not pay a download fee that amounts to the same or more as buying the CD because I have used my internet connection, my hard drive, my CD if I choose to burn a backup, my paper and ink if I choose to print attached artwork etc. What percentage of the cost of a CD goes to the recording artist? Please inform me someone! I don’t know what it is but I do know it is very little. We use a supply chain that could (should) be recoding artist-recording studio-server. After that all the costs are the users to meet. What is the value per track (per track is silly, tracks can be from seconds to an hour in length!) if we pay for what we have actually used? (this could be established).

I’m writing from the UK, I’m not familiar with this organisation the RIAA, but I understand that they are some Dinosaur organisation, that we probably support by buying CDs anyway , who are out to whack the little copy write violator while ignoring (often due to vested interests no doubt) the huge breach right under their noses. They are also the property of the guys that will loose out when the business of music distribution becomes electronic rather than physical because they will have nothing to do. except become server companies in this respect.

The woman in New York who did this has just the right idea
“Actually there was one woman in New York who counter sued using the USA’s mafia laws, don’t know what became of that case though.”
I would like to know how she got on.

The way to beat these guys into the future is to follow her example! Don’t settle out of court, if you do demand receipts from your favourite artists!
Fight these people in every way possible, even if you don’t win you will get positive publicity. Make sure that it costs them far more to do you than they will ever get out of it.
How about a voluntary system to pay the true royalty directly to the artist with an explanation of why they are sent the money and a petition to make their material available legally at the right price, heck! we could give them 10% more than they get at the moment… or how about 20% more for the underpaid, struggling artist.

In the end you can’t hold back history, and the trouble makers here are historic already, they don’t like it, they have a lot of weight to throw about and they think that intimidation will win the day for them. Prove them wrong. Some direct dialog with artists would be interesting.

What do you think?

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13225 Reader's Write Fri, 06 May 2005 21:12:57 +0000 #comment-13225 I forgot my email address. By the way, I am glad this forum is running, but I think labeling everyone not signing in, "Anonymous Coward" is too extreme. Sometimes maybe they are too cowardly, but often, the anonymity is a great tool, and is used effectively by very well meaning and brave people, who just recognize good strategy. My email addess: boatbrain@aol.com My NAME is STEVE WHITE, I sent the link about RIAA and the prosecutors because the former President of the prosecutor's lobby did some wrongs to me, and I wanted revenge. Never cared about music downloads, though I do think the industry is run by excessively powerful cartels, and the resistance to that is good. I like psychedelic music. I was going to buy a CD of some old stuff, but it was expensive, though the artist is dead almost 35 years. Crazy laws, not to protect the artist, but the corporations which have control of everything. Great with me if you folks can knock them down a bit. I forgot my email address. By the way, I am glad this forum is running, but I think labeling everyone not signing in, “Anonymous Coward” is too extreme. Sometimes maybe they are too cowardly, but often, the anonymity is a great tool, and is used effectively by very well meaning and brave people, who just recognize good strategy.

My email addess: boatbrain@aol.com

My NAME is STEVE WHITE, I sent the link about RIAA and the prosecutors because the former President of the prosecutor’s lobby did some wrongs to me, and I wanted revenge. Never cared about music downloads, though I do think the industry is run by excessively powerful cartels, and the resistance to that is good.

I like psychedelic music. I was going to buy a CD of some old stuff, but it was expensive, though the artist is dead almost 35 years. Crazy laws, not to protect the artist, but the corporations which have control of everything. Great with me if you folks can knock them down a bit.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13222 Reader's Write Fri, 06 May 2005 21:04:56 +0000 #comment-13222 About a year back, this P2P forum sent out my link to the web page of the California District Attorneys Association. A sub page on their site gave news of their annual convention, and it was clear they were getting paid off by the RIAA to go after file sharers. I pointed out this might mean all DAs whose offices were given money, and all DAs who were given money individually, (door prizes given away at the convention, but very nice door prizes) could have a conflict of interest in prosecuting any file sharers, and defense attornies should contact me for more information. I have never heard from anyone about it. I guess the trade groups, MPAA and RIAA, have decided to go after people on their own, rather than get the prosecutors to do it. I hope I helped that effort out some. I just posted this to remind anyone who is being criminally prosecuted in California to bring this up. And a little word about cirminal defense lawyers, in case you have one and this suggestion is rejected. I am not a lawyer, so I can not tell you the best defense, but I can say, your own lawyer, who might fight very hard to get a psycopathic child rapist/murdered a not guilty verdict, may not be willing, because of courthouse politics, to bring up the fact the DA may have a conflict of interest in a case. Your own lawyer may be wa former DA, and not want to directly challenge his former colleagues, or, failing that, he may just not want to be "black-balled", and have the DA office refuse to deal with him in the future. In theory, we have an adversary system, where your lawyer is your champion, and does everything he can to protect you, but the fact is, your lawyer, especially if he practices in only one county, say LA, where the RIAA was really spreading some cash, (mostly for toys the DA wanted but did not have budget for) your lawyer needs to be able to deal with those same people long after you are no longer his client. If the DA says, "no more plea bargains for any clients of that lawyer who said I had a conflict of interest" then your laywer is finished in the criminal defense field. Sorry to be so long winded. Anyone being prosecuted, please contact me. About a year back, this P2P forum sent out my link to the web page of the California District Attorneys Association.

A sub page on their site gave news of their annual convention, and it was clear they were getting paid off by the RIAA to go after file sharers.

I pointed out this might mean all DAs whose offices were given money, and all DAs who were given money individually, (door prizes given away at the convention, but very nice door prizes) could have a conflict of interest in prosecuting any file sharers, and defense attornies should contact me for more information.

I have never heard from anyone about it. I guess the trade groups, MPAA and RIAA, have decided to go after people on their own, rather than get the prosecutors to do it. I hope I helped that effort out some.

I just posted this to remind anyone who is being criminally prosecuted in California to bring this up.

And a little word about cirminal defense lawyers, in case you have one and this suggestion is rejected.

I am not a lawyer, so I can not tell you the best defense, but I can say, your own lawyer, who might fight very hard to get a psycopathic child rapist/murdered a not guilty verdict, may not be willing, because of courthouse politics, to bring up the fact the DA may have a conflict of interest in a case. Your own lawyer may be wa former DA, and not want to directly challenge his former colleagues, or, failing that, he may just not want to be “black-balled”, and have the DA office refuse to deal with him in the future.

In theory, we have an adversary system, where your lawyer is your champion, and does everything he can to protect you, but the fact is, your lawyer, especially if he practices in only one county, say LA, where the RIAA was really spreading some cash, (mostly for toys the DA wanted but did not have budget for) your lawyer needs to be able to deal with those same people long after you are no longer his client.

If the DA says, “no more plea bargains for any clients of that lawyer who said I had a conflict of interest” then your laywer is finished in the criminal defense field.

Sorry to be so long winded. Anyone being prosecuted, please contact me.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13095 Reader's Write Tue, 03 May 2005 22:10:42 +0000 #comment-13095 Actually there was one woman in New York who counter sued using the USA's mafia laws, don't know what became of that case though. Actually there was one woman in New York who counter sued using the USA’s mafia laws, don’t know what became of that case though.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13068 Reader's Write Tue, 03 May 2005 05:54:40 +0000 #comment-13068 Linkin Park, a Big Band signed up under WMG, one of the Big Four labels that owns the RIAA, isn't too impressed. http://p2pnet.net/story/4713 Cheers! Linkin Park, a Big Band signed up under WMG, one of the Big Four labels that owns the RIAA, isn’t too impressed.

http://p2pnet.net/story/4713

Cheers!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13066 Reader's Write Tue, 03 May 2005 05:35:15 +0000 #comment-13066 "It is not clear whether they are suing downloaders now or just uploaders, the media constantly make errors on these terms." ***************************************************** the mainstream media only reports what they're told to report - and how to report it. they don't care what they read off teleprompters as long as their AOL Time Warner Murdoch paycheck clears the bank. it was made clear some time ago - and recently repeated in a report i can't now exactly remember where. a lead RIAA rep or some lawyer or someone said they are presently only going after uploaders, not downloaders. and they're focusing on people who upload/share thousands of files at a time. also they are suing BT tracker owners, and websites which have quicklinks. if someone knows who said that and where it was reported - maybe jon knows - please post it here? “It is not clear whether they are suing downloaders now or just uploaders, the media constantly make errors on these terms.”
*****************************************************
the mainstream media only reports what they’re told to report – and how to report it. they don’t care what they read off teleprompters as long as their AOL Time Warner Murdoch paycheck clears the bank.

it was made clear some time ago – and recently repeated in a report i can’t now exactly remember where. a lead RIAA rep or some lawyer or someone said they are presently only going after uploaders, not downloaders. and they’re focusing on people who upload/share thousands of files at a time.

also they are suing BT tracker owners, and websites which have quicklinks.

if someone knows who said that and where it was reported – maybe jon knows – please post it here?

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13065 Reader's Write Tue, 03 May 2005 05:28:16 +0000 #comment-13065 bds-palace and dvdr-core are the only ones i know that aren't settling and will take it to court. the aren't in the US, they're in the UK and are UK citizens. the MPAA has no jurisdiction over them. **we won't mention the LokiTorrent sellout scam-artist thief Edward Webber here. http://www.2mediarelations.com/px/loki/ bds-palace and dvdr-core are the only ones i know that aren’t settling and will take it to court.

the aren’t in the US, they’re in the UK and are UK citizens. the MPAA has no jurisdiction over them.

**we won’t mention the LokiTorrent sellout scam-artist thief Edward Webber here. http://www.2mediarelations.com/px/loki/

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13063 Reader's Write Tue, 03 May 2005 05:00:49 +0000 #comment-13063 Problem is, the RIAA isn't protecting the artists property. They are protecting their own property. The artist, the market, and the customer are all shortchanged when dealing with major music. The "it's about the artist" is just as much a smokescreen as it's about the support people. How many of those support people you reckon are getting paid for purchases of on-line music? The cd makers? Prehaps the guy that drives the truck that delivers the music to the store? No? How about mom and pop record store? lols. Guess what? All of those folks were elimanated with the digital sales. Lets get straight just WHO is putting folks out of a job first... As far as artists making more money by selling their own cds, they can. If they have a contract with the majors, to sell those cds they have to buy the permission to do so from the majors. Do check sometime. There is a charge for each and every cd that is a major music offering if the artists is selling their own work because of their contract with the majors. Indies face no such penalties for producing and selling their own works. Problem is, the RIAA isn’t protecting the artists property. They are protecting their own property. The artist, the market, and the customer are all shortchanged when dealing with major music. The “it’s about the artist” is just as much a smokescreen as it’s about the support people. How many of those support people you reckon are getting paid for purchases of on-line music? The cd makers? Prehaps the guy that drives the truck that delivers the music to the store? No? How about mom and pop record store? lols. Guess what? All of those folks were elimanated with the digital sales. Lets get straight just WHO is putting folks out of a job first…

As far as artists making more money by selling their own cds, they can. If they have a contract with the majors, to sell those cds they have to buy the permission to do so from the majors. Do check sometime. There is a charge for each and every cd that is a major music offering if the artists is selling their own work because of their contract with the majors. Indies face no such penalties for producing and selling their own works.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13062 Reader's Write Tue, 03 May 2005 04:54:21 +0000 #comment-13062 I think there is only one person who reportedly did not settle with RIAA and is taking it to trial. I'll just be praying for them to win, if indeed they didn't do what is claimed. Otherwise, I'll feel really sorry for this person, who will probably have to declare bankruptcy. Oh, wait a minute. Republicans are trying to make it more difficult to do this, so this person might have to leave the U.S. I think there is only one person who reportedly did not settle with RIAA and is taking it to trial. I’ll just be praying for them to win, if indeed they didn’t do what is claimed. Otherwise, I’ll feel really sorry for this person, who will probably have to declare bankruptcy. Oh, wait a minute. Republicans are trying to make it more difficult to do this, so this person might have to leave the U.S.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13060 Reader's Write Tue, 03 May 2005 04:28:59 +0000 #comment-13060 I think the RIAA is right to protect artists property, even though these suits will make half of the U.S. population not buy music for a long time, leading to more artists in poverty. A $3,000 settlement is a little draconian for a college student with no job or single working families, though unless the person actually distributed songs. It is not clear whether they are suing downloaders now or just uploaders, the media constantly make errors on these terms. I don't feel bad for the $10 million artist losing $1 million him/herself due to illegal downloading, but there are a number of people supporting these acts that aren't very well paid and don't deserve to be stolen from. So, people are stealing from the small fish too, and it hurts them more. I think the recording labels (if they want my business, anyway) should have some kind of secure website or kiosks in stores where music fans can listen to only once (but not download) ANY track in the labels' catalogs before buying, without any monthly subscription like napster. It is not fair to charge $17.99 for a CD or $1 for a track I don't get to fully review before I buy it, and only a few places or websites offer previews for only the most popular CDs and tracks. Otherwise, what point is there for a small artist to work for a label, other than the marketing efforts they provide, which aren't effective to me? He/She could probably do better selling CDs at their own show. I think the RIAA is right to protect artists property, even though these suits will make half of the U.S. population not buy music for a long time, leading to more artists in poverty. A $3,000 settlement is a little draconian for a college student with no job or single working families, though unless the person actually distributed songs. It is not clear whether they are suing downloaders now or just uploaders, the media constantly make errors on these terms.
I don’t feel bad for the $10 million artist losing $1 million him/herself due to illegal downloading, but there are a number of people supporting these acts that aren’t very well paid and don’t deserve to be stolen from. So, people are stealing from the small fish too, and it hurts them more.
I think the recording labels (if they want my business, anyway) should have some kind of secure website or kiosks in stores where music fans can listen to only once (but not download) ANY track in the labels’ catalogs before buying, without any monthly subscription like napster. It is not fair to charge $17.99 for a CD or $1 for a track I don’t get to fully review before I buy it, and only a few places or websites offer previews for only the most popular CDs and tracks. Otherwise, what point is there for a small artist to work for a label, other than the marketing efforts they provide, which aren’t effective to me? He/She could probably do better selling CDs at their own show.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13049 Reader's Write Mon, 02 May 2005 23:19:30 +0000 #comment-13049 ... search for RIAA + file sharing + Cary Sherman + Mitch Bainwol + p2p and so on, in general Cheers! … search for RIAA + file sharing + Cary Sherman + Mitch Bainwol + p2p and so on, in general

Cheers!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13046 Reader's Write Mon, 02 May 2005 22:03:56 +0000 #comment-13046 Regardless if it is illegal, it shouldn't be!! Copywrite laws where not made for this reason. For the same reason that copywrite laws were NOT made to allow someone to copywrite a saying or phrase. A copywrite law that says I can't copy something and give it to my friends for free is bogus! The copywrite laws SHOULD protect its holders from more dangerous infringements! like those actual pirates out there that resell what they copy... The 10,000+ people that are being sued... is just rediculious... this is the abomination that happens when the stupid US government makes mistakes in their laws. These poor famillies have been destroyed! Completely destroyed... all in the name of the RIAA. Thats not even a fair punishment, if filesharring was(not saying it is) an imoral act! I'd rather spend a year in Jail than have my life ruined for downloading and sharring 1s and 0s. Regardless if it is illegal, it shouldn’t be!!
Copywrite laws where not made for this reason. For the same reason that copywrite laws were NOT made to allow someone to copywrite a saying or phrase.
A copywrite law that says I can’t copy something and give it to my friends for free is bogus! The copywrite laws SHOULD protect its holders from more dangerous infringements! like those actual pirates out there that resell what they copy…

The 10,000+ people that are being sued… is just rediculious… this is the abomination that happens when the stupid US government makes mistakes in their laws.

These poor famillies have been destroyed! Completely destroyed… all in the name of the RIAA. Thats not even a fair punishment, if filesharring was(not saying it is) an imoral act! I’d rather spend a year in Jail than have my life ruined for downloading and sharring 1s and 0s.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13038 Reader's Write Mon, 02 May 2005 20:16:49 +0000 #comment-13038 Why don't we ever hear anything further about them? Are their cases still waiting for a court date? *************************************************** you might be new to p2pnet, so i'll be gentle with you. ;) i've written several recent articles and interviews about/with bds-palace and dvdr-core. they've been picked up by other p2p/tech news sites, as well as postined to at least 20 other message boards each. search here for bds-palace, dvdr-core, alexander hanff, kevin reid. Why don’t we ever hear anything further about them? Are their cases still waiting for a court date?
***************************************************

you might be new to p2pnet, so i’ll be gentle with you. ;)

i’ve written several recent articles and interviews about/with bds-palace and dvdr-core.

they’ve been picked up by other p2p/tech news sites, as well as postined to at least 20 other message boards each.

search here for bds-palace, dvdr-core, alexander hanff, kevin reid.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13037 Reader's Write Mon, 02 May 2005 20:00:48 +0000 #comment-13037 The years roll by and the list of people sued grows. The RIAA tells us about lots of people settling for a few $ thousand each. What about the people who decided to fight? Why don't we ever hear anything further about them? Are their cases still waiting for a court date? Did the RIAA back off? Was there a settlement with a gag order? The years roll by and the list of people sued grows. The RIAA tells us about lots of people settling for a few $ thousand each. What about the people who decided to fight? Why don’t we ever hear anything further about them? Are their cases still waiting for a court date? Did the RIAA back off? Was there a settlement with a gag order?

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13035 Reader's Write Mon, 02 May 2005 19:57:32 +0000 #comment-13035 Copyright infringement is illegal, but "sharing" copyrighted material can be legal under various circumstance. The range of those circumstances is currently being tested in the courts, and may be for many years to come. Aren't successful lawyers supposed to be picky about details? :-) Copyright infringement is illegal, but “sharing” copyrighted material can be legal under various circumstance. The range of those circumstances is currently being tested in the courts, and may be for many years to come. Aren’t successful lawyers supposed to be picky about details? :-)

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13033 Reader's Write Mon, 02 May 2005 19:43:13 +0000 #comment-13033 That's because the RIAA isn't trying to prove the person guilty. They are trying to recover damages from the individuals, similar to what you are entitled to do if say, your neighbor decides your car would be a good place to spraypaint the f-word. That’s because the RIAA isn’t trying to prove the person guilty. They are trying to recover damages from the individuals, similar to what you are entitled to do if say, your neighbor decides your car would be a good place to spraypaint the f-word.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13032 Reader's Write Mon, 02 May 2005 19:39:46 +0000 #comment-13032 If you are in the USA, you are breaking the law. Sharing a file isn't illegal, but distributing a copyrighted work is. Period. Doesn't matter if you're not making any money from it. Check copyright law. It's pretty simple. P2P is the most visible way of distributing things at the moment, so it gets the most attention. This message is not meant as an endorsement of the tacticts of the RIAA or MPAA because they suck things I can't write about here. I wish I was not making as much money as these groups are not making right now. If you are in the USA, you are breaking the law. Sharing a file isn’t illegal, but distributing a copyrighted work is.

Period.

Doesn’t matter if you’re not making any money from it. Check copyright law. It’s pretty simple. P2P is the most visible way of distributing things at the moment, so it gets the most attention.

This message is not meant as an endorsement of the tacticts of the RIAA or MPAA because they suck things I can’t write about here. I wish I was not making as much money as these groups are not making right now.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13031 Reader's Write Mon, 02 May 2005 09:33:14 +0000 #comment-13031 Laws that shouldn't be... shouldn't be!! If a law says something is wrong, when it isn't, and was only made to benifit a company... it should and will be eventually removed. Laws that shouldn’t be… shouldn’t be!!

If a law says something is wrong, when it isn’t, and was only made to benifit a company… it should and will be eventually removed.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13029 Reader's Write Mon, 02 May 2005 08:35:00 +0000 #comment-13029 If these ppl are criminals, why aren't they being reported to the police? I wouldn't be suing someone who stole something from me. At least not til after they were charged, tried, and convicted. Then i'd sue if i could, just to put the boot in. If these ppl are criminals, why aren’t they being reported to the police? I wouldn’t be suing someone who stole something from me.

At least not til after they were charged, tried, and convicted. Then i’d sue if i could, just to put the boot in.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/4702/comment-page-1#comment-13028 Reader's Write Mon, 02 May 2005 08:10:41 +0000 #comment-13028 Look, I am sympathetic to file sharing and think it should be legal. But let's not fool ourselves. I am a law student who has studied copyright, and sharing copyrighted songs is illegal. I think it shouldn't be, but it is. The other point I have is that these are civil lawsuits, as opposed to criminal lawsuits. So nobody will be found "innocent" or "guilty." The words to describe it are "liable" and "not liable" -- only money is at sake, not a conviction of anything. Look, I am sympathetic to file sharing and think it should be legal. But let’s not fool ourselves. I am a law student who has studied copyright, and sharing copyrighted songs is illegal. I think it shouldn’t be, but it is.

The other point I have is that these are civil lawsuits, as opposed to criminal lawsuits. So nobody will be found “innocent” or “guilty.” The words to describe it are “liable” and “not liable” — only money is at sake, not a conviction of anything.

]]>