  DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
2 edits | If they don't have to follow the rules, then I why should I? I buy all my music from iTunes and this kinda crap makes me want to stop just out of spite.
If they want money, let them prove it's owed to them.
F*ck the RIAA
F*ck the MPAA
These bloodsucking racketeers should go to Federal Pound Me In the Ass prison for their continuous RICO violations. Wonder if they would expect proof before surrendering to the Marshal. | |
|
 |  NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: If they don't have to follow the rules, then I why should I? I say we do a citizens arrest of the presidents of both organizations and lock them away. We'll jail them on the same premise of not having to prove anything. | |
|
| | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: If they don't have to follow the rules, then I why should I? I am still waiting for someone to file a RICO complaint against both the RIAA and MPAA. After all, they are "Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations", are they not?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
2 edits | Re: If they don't have to follow the rules, then I why should I? They certainly engage in racketeering including extortion & protection rackets (threatening people with lawsuits if they don't pay them off with a few G's whether the lawsuits have merit or not) and bribery (they bribe politicians to get their laws passed). | |
|
|
2 edits | Perhaps I misunderstand the history, but a judge in another case found that "making available without profit" is not a violation of copyright law. The judge in this case reopened it to argument for retrial because he instructed the jury that they could find that the material was "made available." So the context that I understand is they don't want to have to provide evidence of copying. They feel that making available alone should be criminal and providing evidence of making available should suffice.
As much as I dislike both of the AA's and couldn't care less about P2P, I agree with them that the law is inadequate for two reasons. The copyrighted material is being shared (duh!) - contrary to copyright. They now have virtually no means of enforcing their copyrights over P2P.
The AA's aren't going to give up. Legislation is either going to change or we are all going to be paying for violators through charges at the ISP bounced back to the AA's. Personally, I hope the legislation gets changed and the AA's have a field day in civil courts. Having civil means of recourse weakens their argument for an ISP tax. Without it, they have the best argument in the world. | |
|
| |  james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | Re: If they don't have to follow the rules, then I why should I? Too bad all the file sharing is free publicity for their clients. You know, publicity, like they used to PAY for, before they decided that the radio stations were pirates? | |
|
| | | Whatever drugs these lawyers are on, I want some.
The RIAA and MPAA in Court:
"Where's the evidence?
"Spread out!" -RIAA
"Hey, you guys, we got work to do." -MPAA
"Nyuck! Nyuck! Nyuck!" -Bono of U2
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Proof schmoof Ok say the defendant did pay the damages in advance. If the defendant won in court is the RIAA going to give back the money? Is there going to be interest included? Are they going to give it back in a timely manner and not require a lawsuit to do it?
I'm willing to bet if some artists got together and decided to sue the RIAA for "damages" I'm 100% sure the RIAA would not think the "pay now, prove my innocence later" thing is a good idea. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
1 edit | Bad Summary quote:
Because the Judge has decided that actually showing evidence of a crime might be a good idea.
The article summary confuses the result of civil court cases with crimes. Crimes can only be prosecuted by the government. These are all civil cases, no one is going to be sanctioned by the government if they lose.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
| DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | Re: Bad Summary The civil cases stem from damages to be awarded per the criminal statues (eg Title 17, NETA, DMCA etc).
IOW, they don't have a civil case if not for the criminal statues. Without a crime having been committed (the person violating the statute), they have no damages. | |
|
| | | said by pnh102:The article summary confuses the result of civil court cases with crimes. Crimes can only be prosecuted by the government. These are all civil cases, no one is going to be sanctioned by the government if they lose. LMAO. More like bad reading. Did you even read the Wired article, or were you just too much in a hurry to demonstrate your legal vocabulary?
Whether the allegation is prosecuted in civil or criminal court, proof is still necessary. The only thing different is the standard. I guess you must have missed law class the day law was discussed. | |
|
| |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Bad Summary pnh102 is right, "showing evidence of a crime" is not an element of a civil case. "Showing evidence of a tort" or something similar is. Nobody said proof wasn't required, but the word "crime" is out of place in an article dealing with civil infractions. | |
|
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Re: Bad Summary It certainly is if the RIAA looking to claim damage awards stated in the criminal statutes.
Those big penalties are written into the criminal statues. If this was a simple civil tort, they would only be able to collect their actual damages plus perhaps an unspecified punitive damage.
Like shoplifting and writing bad checks, the criminal statue grants additional damage awards but you only get the damage award if that statue was violated.
They absolutely must prove the crime happened if they want to collect damages for violation of the statue. | |
|
| | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Bad Summary That's not true, you're confusing "criminal damages" with "statutory damages". RIAA/MPAA only need to prove their case by "preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the state is not required to provide an attorney for you. There may be civil damamges that kick in upon a criminal conviction, but the statute also allows for pure civil suits absent of a criminal prosecution. There's nothing criminal about it. | |
|
| | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | Re: Bad Summary Criminal damages and statutory damages aren't mutually exclusive.
They don't get statutory damages unless they show the statue to which the statutory damages apply was violated. Their damage award was received based solely on the files being available for transfer.
This is where the RIAA ran into a wall. Merely hosting the files (making them available) isn't a violation of the statue AT ALL. The statute specifically requires a transfer and the court overturned the decision requiring proof that the transfers occurred. Whether by preponderance of the evidence or not, the RIAA showed ZERO evidence that the transfers actually occurred.
IOW, hosting the files by itself is not actionable because there is no statute prohibiting it and the RIAA/MPAA can't go after those people outside the statutes because they have no damages from someone just hosting files. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Bad Summary said by Dogfather:Hosting the files by itself is not actionable because there is nothing illegal about it and the RIAA/MPAA can't go after those people outside the statute because the have no damages from someone just hosting files. Yet... If this becomes the requirement, I honestly feel they will buy the change necessary in Washington. It shames me to say it, but in these situations our lawmakers are for sale.
Now, must you download the whole file or just a part? If you have to get the whole file... how does that work in a distributed system? They allow legal 'sampling' of songs without copyright issues correct? I could easily say that little bit you got from me was just a... sample.
Or I could say it was just data. By itself it was useless.. completely unrecognizable as anything copyrighted to anyone. | |
|
| | | | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Bad Summary That was my question from a few weeks ago. If it's a torrent, does a few KB of a file constitute a "work"? And could the RIAA do their own downloading? Meaning can the RIAA infringe on their own works?
The law is unclear but what is clear is that simple making files, even if they're entire songs available, isn't a violation of the statue and thus the RIAA doesn't get sh!t. | |
|
| | | | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | That's all fine and dandy, but you still haven't shown where "criminal" plays into it. There are no criminal damages without a criminal conviction. | |
|
| | | | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | Re: Bad Summary Because the statues in question are criminal statutes (specifically Title 17 506 and 507 and Title 18 Sec 2319) and these statutes permit both civil and criminal penalties.
No one is talking about criminal damages (eg property damage). My point is even in a civil action you don't get the statutory damages unless you fulfill the requirements per the statue (the person has to be found to infringe). And in this case the statue in question doesn't allow for statutory damages for hosting files, only for transferring files (hosting isn't infringement). But the RIAA got their award based on the hosting alone. It's simply not a violation of the Copyright Act to host files, according to this court.
IOW, the RIAA's case was that the Copyright Act was violated thus they're entitled to statutory damages per the statute. The court tossed it out saying the RIAA must show evidence that the Copyright Act was violated. | |
|
| | |  major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | said by vpoko:pnh102 is right, "showing evidence of a crime" is not an element of a civil case. "Showing evidence of a tort" or something similar is.
It is? That's a new one on me. Gonna have to write that one down and use it sometime....But your honor, showing evidence of crime is not an element of the case...showing evidence of a tort is!
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
|
| | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Bad Summary I suppose if you ever had a judge that didn't know the difference between a crime and a tort you could pull that one out. | |
|
| | |
1 edit | said by vpoko:pnh102 is right, "showing evidence of a crime" is not an element of a civil case. "Showing evidence of a tort" or something similar is. Nobody said proof wasn't required, but the word "crime" is out of place in an article dealing with civil infractions. Court is a "quest for admissable evidence". Civil courts require proof, more proof better you are, and a preponderance of the "evidence" in your favor to win. Criminal court is same proof but beyond a reasonable doubt.
Actually, the lawyers are stupid since if they claim "crime", they shouldn't be there a prosecutor should. Crimes have punishements. Civil torts have damages (loss of money).
Ex: If your friend stole your iPod, that is a civil case not a crime unless a prosecutor has almost nothing to do. It could be a crime but without prosecution, isn't. So, you sue in small claims and have 2 witnesses saying, "Yeah, he took it" or a video of he took it, you win the case by the preponderance of the evidence. A receipt proving you bought it, witnesses saying it was yours, and witnesses saying, "Yeah, he has it" will work too.
Simply, without a prosecution, there is no crime. Just a tort. Now, it could become a crime if the case is won and prosecutors decided to go after the person and win.
Once the find an unfriednly judge, the RIAA and MPAA will get whacked. "It's the proof, stupid!"
Now, if the RIAA or MPAA reps downloaded from you, you might have a civil case for invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution (torts or criminal prosecution works for that), and maybe even illegal wiretapping if say you were on dialup. If you have Vonage hooked up to a HSI connection along with downloading/uploading, invasion of privacy could still take root or illegal wiretapping since you could sue them for reading all your data. How do we know what they were looking at on IP address 189.xx.xx.xx? I doubt seriously they can't look at ALL data so how are they "looking" in the first place. Just using bittorent would be illegal on both sides if downloading copyrighted material, but, where is the distribution? If nobody but the RIAA/MPAA downloaded it, they have a weak case the Judge should pounce on.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | well the pre determined fines are listed in an FBI warning which means copyright violations do have a criminal angle as well that has to be proven.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Too Bad Jammie Thomas's ISP wasn't Comcast Comcast was blocking 100% of my Gnutella uploads, 24/7/daily. Even if I was sharing copyrighted files, I couldn't have violated anyone's copyright by doing so.
She was using Kazaa and Charter -- a protocol I didn't test on and ISP I never tested. That said, given that ISPs can and do block uploads on a wholesale level, there's a damned good chance that she shared nothing at all. | |
|
| | | Re: Too Bad Jammie Thomas's ISP wasn't Comcast i use charter, and they do not block p2p, and i have recived dmca letters my self on files that have been seeded by my pc, since i installed peer gaurduian, i have not recived anything. | |
|
 FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSAPremium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·Bright House
| What?!?!? said by someone :
The Constitution is just an old piece of paper that doesn't mean anything in our country today. The entertainment industry should have more power than a bunch of old guys in white wigs.
- MPAA & RIAA
joke of course | |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| Idiots I guess they think we should all just stand in line and give them $150k? This is the reason I washed my hands of the entire music industry years ago. Terrible music, asinine practices, and now lawsuits with no evidence. They can burn for all I care. | |
|
| lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Idiots So when the MPAA and RIAA apply the same evidentiary standard as do many Bush haters on this board, then that standard becomes wrong?
Not pointing the finger you ender7074, but there seems to be a large number of hypocrites on this board. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Idiots said by lesopp:So when the MPAA and RIAA apply the same evidentiary standard as do many Bush haters on this board, then that standard becomes wrong? Not pointing the finger you ender7074, but there seems to be a large number of hypocrites on this board. I really don't follow your response there. What does the RIAA have to do with Bush? | |
|
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Idiots It was an analogy.
People here are posting how wrong it is for the RIAA to sue P2P users without any real evidence. Yet many of those same people have concluded Bush is guilty of something without any real evidence. | |
|
| | When your frivolous lawsuits fail.. .. turn to subverting the law yourself.
If it's nearly impossible to prove, then they should try actually building a legitimate business around using technology rather than fighting it, instead of taking away fair use, not attempting to brainwash people with propaganda, and especially not acting like they're the corporate Gestapo. But since they refuse, and would rather push copyright enforcement above the proper judicial process of civil or criminal cases, I don't feel bad for them. I'd much rather the pirates win.
--
Moore/Alexander 2008
Conservatives love religious-like aphorisms so here's one: "Freedom isn't free. It's Made in China." | |
|
| | How much Evidence that XXIA is Organized Crime Always thought XXIA was a front for organized crime due to their actions and how the musicians are not paid. This seals the deal. Bring on the grand jury.
This also makes anyone who takes money from them part of organized crime. | |
|
|
 BabyBearKeep wise ...with Nite-Owl
join:2007-01-11 | Words that can come back to haunt said by RIAA :
"would solely benefit those who seek to freeload off plaintiff's investment."
Hmm, Maybe the artists could borrow that line when used against the RIAA themselves.  | |
|
 ShamayimI already have a Messiah.Premium
join:2002-09-23 | Perversion of justice That the //AA and **AA are discredited organizations is a given (witness this latest manipulation). That a judge would actually throw in with them is disheartening.
--
Who is Jesus? and Why it matters (to YOU).
| |
|
| | | Re: Perversion of justice With how corrupt the US's legal system is it really doesn't surprise me. If the **AAs lose in one court, they simply find another judge they can buy to preside over the appeal.
Our legal system is broken, plain and simple, and abuse of it will keep happening until it's fixed. | |
|
| | | | Re: Perversion of justice Doesn't matter if they do because the precedent has already been made against them, which mucks up the whole "unstoppable suing machine" motif the RIAA has been making for themselves. | |
|
 TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless
| Proof? Who needs proof? Proof? "Proof" only hinders our ability to fill prisons, sue people, and make money. Do away with proof, all we need is an accusation, and a well funded legal office.
Proof is only for commie pinkos who break the law, not for law-abiding AmeriKKKans. If you obey, there will be no accusation, and no punishment. Who needs proof?
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
|
 ironweaselWeezyPremium
join:2000-09-13
Belen, NM
kudos:1 |  Where do I file a lawsuit?
Stole everything I owned that wasn't nailed down, spray painted racial slurs on my walls, peed on my carpets, and drank all the milk in my fridge.
I just know it was the RIAA coming to get me for sharing that Vanilla Ice .mp3. Bastards!
I should go sue them for a bazillion dollars now to cover my mental anguish over the loss of my milk or something.
How do I know it was the RIAA that did it?
Well, I don't and I can't prove it. But what the hell! I'll sue 'em anyway! Yeehaw!
--
But there’s no sense crying over every mistake
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake | |
|
|
|  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
1 edit | Re: The copyright police are use to getting what they want. In the UK, there is a group called the Performing Rights
Society (PRS) that goes after people playing music out
loud, claiming they need a license to do so.
There have been a number of cases involving them, such as
one involving a children's home not being allowed to sing
Christmas carols.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
| |
|
| | | said by Mr Matt:* Playing copyrighted songs over music on hold systems without paying a license fee. Violation: Rebroadcasting * Playing background music over public address systems without paying a license fee. Violation: Rebroadcasting * Restaurant employees Singing Happy Birthday To You to a guest without paying a license fee. Violation: Performance of song without a license. * The Girl Scouts singing copyrighted songs around their campfires. Violation: Performance without paying a license fee. Legal Action brought by ASCAP in 1996. Do not expect to see any changes to the laws soon. Crooked politicians love to have celebrities including musicians and actors on the Dias with them during their political campaigns. Those are all examples of royalty payment agencies like ASCAP biting on the heels of any business that makes money and happens to play copyrighted music somewhere. It's a totally different animal than the lawsuits the record labels and the RIAA are pursuing. Sure it's a problem, but another problem entirely. | |
|
| |  mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Re: The copyright police are use to getting what they want. Which those forms of harassment should cease immediately....not like they are losing money for public listening as long as it's not a full album worth of music...fucking idiots and their scum lawyers. | |
|
| | |
 tomkbPremium
join:2000-11-15
Tampa, FL
kudos:5 | Free music lives They should just get over it, piracy is here to stay forever. | |
|
| | | Re: Free music lives I won't argue that piracy can never be completely eliminated. Anyone who thinks so is just dreaming. However, I don't think that claiming that music should be free" justifies piracy. Neither does "their prices are too high" or "I hate that DRM."
If the price is too high, then your choice is clear: Do without the music. If you want the music that badly, then pay the money for it. (Or find a used CD for less.) But people shouldn't try to claim that their piracy is some form of protest against high music prices.
The same goes for DRM-enabled music. If you don't like that the music comes with DRM, avoid that vendor. Buy from a DRM-less vendor, buy the original CD, or just do without the music.
The most effective way of protesting the RIAA's tactics would be to stop buying new music from member labels. Get your music via used CDs and/or from Indie artists.
Personally, I buy most of my music from AmieStreet.com. I do buy the occasional album from RIAA member labels, but most of the time these purchases take the form of used CD purchases. (And most of those are children's songs for my kids.)
If anything, my music purchases have gone up since I've discovered the Indie artists and the variety of artists I buy from has gone up as well. I've bought songs from artists that I would have likely just walked by had their albums been sitting on the shelf in my local CD shop.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
|
| | Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| Re: Free music lives said by Jason Levine:I won't argue that piracy can never be completely eliminated. Anyone who thinks so is just dreaming. However, I don't think that claiming that music should be free" justifies piracy. Neither does "their prices are too high" or "I hate that DRM." If the price is too high, then your choice is clear: Do without the music. If you want the music that badly, then pay the money for it. (Or find a used CD for less.) But people shouldn't try to claim that their piracy is some form of protest against high music prices. The same goes for DRM-enabled music. If you don't like that the music comes with DRM, avoid that vendor. Buy from a DRM-less vendor, buy the original CD, or just do without the music. The most effective way of protesting the RIAA's tactics would be to stop buying new music from member labels. Get your music via used CDs and/or from Indie artists. Personally, I buy most of my music from AmieStreet.com. I do buy the occasional album from RIAA member labels, but most of the time these purchases take the form of used CD purchases. (And most of those are children's songs for my kids.) If anything, my music purchases have gone up since I've discovered the Indie artists and the variety of artists I buy from has gone up as well. I've bought songs from artists that I would have likely just walked by had their albums been sitting on the shelf in my local CD shop. piracy exist because people want to share things that others want for free... cost the user nothing and cost the freebies nothing. ain't that the beauty of it? | |
|
 La LunaSurvived AshrafulPremium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
kudos:3 | Where is..... .....the ACLU defending the little guy when it really matters.
No where to be seen. Too busy investing themselves in garbage lawsuits. | |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA | Where are the RICO statutes on this issue? Why aren't the **aa's having the RICO statutes thrown at them right now for even suggesting this perilously stupid idea? | |
|
 DigitalXeronThere is a lack of sanity
join:2003-12-17
Hamilton, ON | .... Okay, Here's the situation:
People have the files on their computers - sure. People are 'publically' displaying the lists of said files. There is no evidence that the files are even indeed the real files. I could create a 3.7 MB chunk of garbage data and put it on a P2P net and name it after an MP3 file - am I now doing an act that they could collect $100,000 on? That is all this "making available" is - displaying file lists to the public. No actual transfer of this data.
Now, if I were to generate a playlist and post it on some forum saying, "I may or may not provide the data you want" - am I now committing an offence worth $100,000?
--
--Kradorex Xeron
[an error occurred while processing this signature] | |
|
| | what will happen (theory) im wondering if i share out 10,000 mp3's and rewrite those files as songs from diff artists on a p2p network will these jerks be able to take me to court? | |
|
| | Recording music from FM Radio all i got to say how it download a mp3 any different from recoding a song off the radio, expecialy when i pay my isp, with is a cable co, that has to pay royalties anyhow for there 40+ music stations that play music on my tv? I dont, and i can record the music from that just as easily? What i'm trying to say is some where along the line i belive we paid a copyright somewhere to a song rather we realize it or not. Like the advertising pays for the radio obviosly, so why cant the RIAA open a Add driven comunity with mp3's. I belive ppl will still buy the cd's to music they like in some way, and it makes the artist more well known to sell concerts. But deep down i realy dont care, cause carma is a bitch and the RIAA/MPAA deserves what ever they will end up getting. | |
|
|
3 edits | Re: Recording music from FM Radio The sound quality from FM radio is pretty lousy. The fact is you can do much better than recording normal FM radio: You can record the CD quality digital version that is being sent along with the standard analog FM signals now! The digital version is called HD Radio and the sound quality is unbelievable. All you need is a specific type of HD Radio receiver and HD RadioPC software. The software interfaces a windows PC to the receiver, and automatically records the songs as individual high bitrate mp3 files.
The resulting mp3's sound much better than the lower bitrate mp3's you can find for purchase at iTunes.
HD Radio is free; no subscription required, and since it is a radio broadcast using our public airwaves, it is perfectly legal to record it for private use.
The sad reality is that even if you provide the public with a way to legally obtain all the free high quality song files they could ever desire, most will still prefer illegal options. I guess there is nothing "kewl" about actually obeying laws now days. | |
|
|
|
The copyright police are use to getting what they want.
What the copyright control agencies want is plenty of coverage by the media, of some college student loosing a case and having a judgement placed against them by a copyright control agency for some enormous sum of money. The purpose is to put the fear of prosecution in everyone's mind. It does not really make any difference if the victim is guilty. It is the thought that counts.
The point I was trying to make is that the Copyright Control Agencies are using the same technique to shake down ordinary citizens whether innocent or guilty that they have used in the past to shake down businesses. Businesses can write off legal fees or settlements, college students cannot write off those costs. Imagine receiving a demand letter asking for payment of thousands of dollars from the RIAA for making available copyrighted songs. Why? Because the ISP gave the RIAA your name and address as being the subscriber assigned an IP address that was being used to share copyrighted music. If the matter is investigated and it is determined that the ISP gave the RIAA the wrong name and address for the person that was making available copyrighted songs who pays the wrongly accused's legal costs?
