said by quatrix :

Their criminal "customers" aren't buying products even now, and their "sharing" stops others from buying the products as well. Paying, law-abiding customers are left alone. Stop trying to make up excuses.

said by quatrix :

Their criminal "customers" aren't buying products even now, and their "sharing" stops others from buying the products as well. Paying, law-abiding customers are left alone. Stop trying to make up excuses.

said by qworster :

SURE!

Treat your customers like CRIMINALS-that will keep them buying your product!The RIAA couldn't buy a clue with a thousand dollar bill!

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.