|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 09/05/05 21:21
George Hester wrote:
> "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3o08oiF3g93tU1@individual.net...
>
>>Loco Jones wrote:
>>
>>>Could this be the one to watch?
>>>
>>>
>
> http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1507708/20050816/index.jhtml?headlines=tru
>
>>>e&_requestid=334269
>>>(same as: http://tinyurl.com/bm4w5 )
>>>
>>>Yes, it's KaZaa in the spotlight again, but this could apply to any P2P
>>>application targeted:
>>> < quote >
>>>
>>> "As an exhibit in the complaint, they typed up a list of six songs that
>>>RIAA investigators downloaded from a shared account that was supposedly
>
> on
>
>>>my client's computer," Rogers said. "The complaint said those files were
>>>there for sharing, but they have no evidence that anyone did share them.
>>>For them to prove copyright infringement, they have to show that there
>
> was
>
>>>unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted file to the public. If they
>
> knew
>
>>>some 16-year-old who downloaded those songs from my client's drive, that
>>>would be copyright infringement, but if their own investigators did it,
>>>it's not distribution to the public. A copyright owner cannot infringe
>
> on
>
>>>their own copyright."
>>> < end quote >
>>>
>>>If this case ever makes it way *all* through the legal system, the
>
> results
>
>>>could be very interesting indeed.
>>>
>>
>>Here is a collection of court documents relating to this case:
>>http://riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/
>>
>>There are few interesting points - the RIAA submitted ordinary
>>screen-grabs of KaZaa as evidence. - Suggesting that they don't use bots.
>>Despite about 1100 tracks being shared, they are only claiming
>>infringement on one track from each record company (probably for economy
>>of court time).
>>The court hearing of May 6th 2005 seemed to hinge on the judge's
>>misunderstanding of Kazaa usernames and what they mean - she appeared to
>>be under the impression that this meant it was not the defendant's ISP
>>account.
>>Anyway, despite the news story, the defendent's lawyers have moved for
>>dismissal on the basis that the RIAA did not specify the times of the
>>infringements.
>>
>>I would ceratinly think that the fact that a wifi connection was used
>>would be significant. - I see no mention of the argument about no proof
>>that the tracks have been downloaded by anyone - perhaps this collection
>>is incomplete though.
>>
>>I agree it is one to watch.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Court: I suggest you get a lwayer.
>
> Defendent: What kind of lawyer.?
>
> Court: A lawyer that does a little bit of this and a little bit of that.
>
> Me: LOL:
>
> http://riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/transcript050506.txt
>
The lawyers involved have also started a blog to cover progress on the
case and other related news:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|