said by insomniac84 :

You misunderstand the difference between law and someone's private copyright notice. With law, it is your responsibility to know it it. Ignorance is not a defense. With a copyright, you probably are not under the same obligation. It's probably like a trademark, it is the responsibility of the works owner to make sure other people know their work isn't free. It's probably the reason companies have to put the copyright notices onto products. In this case the RIAA failed to stop people from distributing their copyrighted works without a copyright attached. And they have decided to blame the lowest on the totem pole, the person furthest away from the original copyright notice, the people who didn't originally separate the work from the copyright notice. It would make sense that people who have never seen the copyright couldn't get punished beyond forfeiting the downloaded mp3s and any money earned or derived works.

said by BonezX :

because if at the time it wasn't law then it falls onto the situation of how can i do a crime when it was legal when i did it. ?

said by CWO333 :

And that falls into the protection you get from the United States Constitution here in the US. Its called an Ex Post Facto law. Basically stating that if it was legal when you did it, you can't be punished for it if it becomes illegal later as long as you stopped doing it when it became illegal.

said by bhlonewolf_tom :

But when was copyright violation ever _legal_??? Sorry, that's just silly.