Woman Hit By File-Sharing Verdict Fights Back
 

The war has begun. It took a verdict like this to get people to fight back. Seems that the RIAA may have wanted to avoid this because of this simple reason.

-S

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=202300917

You go girl. If the record companies want to stop falling sales, then they should stop releasing tat.

The problem with this is that it is a jury finding these people guilty. I'm not so sure an appeal will get anywhere. Power to her if it floats.

You are absolutely right. File sharing has nothing to do with it. People used to share tapes of records back in the day, but that didn't stop staggering increases in sales which went through the roof. Even back in the late 80's, you could copy and share CD's in full quality, but that didn't stop the surging music industry's ever increasing profits. Enter the 90's. Grunge came along, and not as many people wanted the CD's, but I still think their sales were still increasing.

Come the 2000's - what new has transpired? What new music type have they invented in the last 15 to 20 years? Nothing. I can't think of any new genere at least. Its rehashed music, and half the tracks have either instrumental tracks ripped from older music, or even sound bites from older music in it. Then you have your re-do's that make you cringe because they sound nothing like the original and its all screwed up. Tack on managed music with no singing ability at all - what are they doing? Talking and cramming as many words as possible into a section of music without singing or going with the music itself one bit? Its terrible! I don't want to buy music like that! DJ's and such in the electronic / trance music, coupled with some New age styles is all I like anymore, and you rarely find these in record stores. I usually have to import it.

Basically, they are using file sharers as an excuse or fallout guy for their stock holders.

-S

Reading how the plantiff set up their case, and that they had her ID, IP address, and everything possible pointed directly back to her, my take on the matter is that they had her nailed to the wall in every possible way.

Her attorney, seeing this, could do nothing but toss up the "HaKor X" excuse, <bluesbrothers> such as a virus did it, a trojan did it, an old friend came in from out of town, I didn't have money for car fare, a terrible plague, locusts, it wasn't my fault!!!</bluesbrothers>

If the only thing you can do is TRY to provide doubt and uncertainty, where none truly exists in a case, a competent attorney will tell you to settle out of court. If I were her, I'd take whatever deal she can get, since she never had a strong defense to begin with....and the jury saw right through it, too.

As was noted in www.news.com last week, there was no evidence that anyone else had access to her PC, no proof of virus or trojans on it, and the suggestion that someone may have piggy-backed on a wireless network WOULD have been a possible excuse, except for the fact that she never stated (or showed) that she had a wireless hook-up.

Don't get me wrong - I was rooting for her to win, but when I saw what kind of slip-shod defense her attorney was trying to throw up, well, she didn't stand a chance.

I hear you to, but to tell you the truth when 7 year old kids can put together a botnet of 100,000+ compromised machines to use at will, or even into the 7 figure range, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that there is a large percetage of systems out there of the total number of people like this mother that are compromised, and these kids are using those systems to share files and send spam mainly.

So her argument holds great weight in my book.

They will not because the world is full of...................

Well you know and I agree with you.