4 ms·

Again, doesn't every p2p application share by default? Is there any evidence that she wanted to share? And unless there's another motive here besides her want

by htsh 17y ago

Again, doesn't every p2p application share by default? Is there any evidence that she wanted to share? And unless there's another motive here besides her wanting to listen to the music, I still don't think we shoult treat her like some bootlegging operation that sells thousands of cd's in downtown manhattan (to customers that are more likely to buy the cd). Also -- she likely would have gotten less of a penalty if she had indeed shoplifted these cd's and then sold thousands of copies on a chinatown corner. I'm just sayin'... Again, crimes usually have to have some sort of intent component. She wanted to download and listen, not share, this music.

seertaak 17y ago
> Again, doesn't every p2p application share by default? Yes, I think so. > Is there any evidence that she wanted to share? She knew what she was doing. She had written a paper about Napster's forced closure. In that paper she argued that it should be legal, so it's quite clear that she knew that filesharing copyrighted material was illegal. And she had password protected her computer, which showed that not only did she have control over the software on her account (she actually put the blame on her son during the trial; absolutely shameless, this woman), but that she was not a complete neophyte on the computer. Claiming ignorance just isn't convincing in this case. > she likely would have gotten less of a penalty if she had indeed shoplifted these cd's and then sold thousands of copies on a chinatown corner True, and rest assured, if a significant amount of people start engaging in this kind of behaviour, the RIAA will go after them too. My point? Filesharing is making the industry bleed. That's why they're going after it. > She wanted to download and listen, not share, this music. She downloaded 1,700 tracks. She shared 24. Those are the facts. It's impossible to know what her intent was, but my feeling is that you're being unduly lenient towards her behaviour.
- htsh 17y ago
  Wow. Unduly lenient for disagreeing with $80,000 per track? As you can see from the above conversation, I'm fine with something like $10 and then perhaps a $100 administrative fee.
  - seertaak 17y ago
    Hang on, I said you were being unduly lenient with her, not the court. And I made clear that the leniency stems not from your disagreement with the sum, but your willingness to absolve her from any intent in distribution when the evidence is that she was more savvy (and dishonest) than she was willing to let on. In essence, you're just defending her because you hate the RIAA, not because her position has any merit. And that I find jarring.

by htsh 17y ago

seertaak 17y ago

> Again, doesn't every p2p application share by default? Yes, I think so. > Is there any evidence that she wanted to share? She knew what she was doing. She had written a paper about Napster's forced closure. In that paper she argued that it should be legal, so it's quite clear that she knew that filesharing copyrighted material was illegal. And she had password protected her computer, which showed that not only did she have control over the software on her account (she actually put the blame on her son during the trial; absolutely shameless, this woman), but that she was not a complete neophyte on the computer. Claiming ignorance just isn't convincing in this case. > she likely would have gotten less of a penalty if she had indeed shoplifted these cd's and then sold thousands of copies on a chinatown corner True, and rest assured, if a significant amount of people start engaging in this kind of behaviour, the RIAA will go after them too. My point? Filesharing is making the industry bleed. That's why they're going after it. > She wanted to download and listen, not share, this music. She downloaded 1,700 tracks. She shared 24. Those are the facts. It's impossible to know what her intent was, but my feeling is that you're being unduly lenient towards her behaviour.

htsh 17y ago
Wow. Unduly lenient for disagreeing with $80,000 per track? As you can see from the above conversation, I'm fine with something like $10 and then perhaps a $100 administrative fee.
- seertaak 17y ago
  Hang on, I said you were being unduly lenient with her, not the court. And I made clear that the leniency stems not from your disagreement with the sum, but your willingness to absolve her from any intent in distribution when the evidence is that she was more savvy (and dishonest) than she was willing to let on. In essence, you're just defending her because you hate the RIAA, not because her position has any merit. And that I find jarring.