RIAA Finally Pays Oregon Mom $108,000 > Way to go Judge!

Way to go Judge!

Damn straight...I hope she wins on her lawsuit too.
As much as I may be against ripping copywritten material, I'm also against the tactics used by RIAA/MPAA.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

reply to Cheese
It's good that someone actually took the time to fight the lawsuit instead of paying the fine. It sucks that she didn't get a nice payday like her lawyer did, hopefully she will on the racketeering charges. Lawyers are gonna seen that dollar amount and make the RIAA and MPAA their new honeypots. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone class action coming soon. I do believe the RIAA & MPAA have legal standing to protect their copyrights, but shaking people down for the amounts there were was just an abuse of the legal system.

That's not really a payday for the lawyer. 3 years for 108k.

reply to en102
... You mean the act of making available without actually sharing and then slapping people with 3000 dollar pay or be sued letters?......

reply to Cheese

said by Cheese:

A win for the man! Or in this case, Woman!

reply to soothsayer15

reply to Cheese
Finally, a judge who understands that legal proof is necessary before conviction.

I hope she takes the RIAA to the cleaners with her civil suit.
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals

reply to jc100

reply to jc100

reply to RARPSL
Technically the RIAA isn't suing anybody, but it's the record labels that are members of said organization that are doing the suing. Also said record labels do tend to own many copyrights of the artists they represent, which is another problem in the music industry altogether. To sum it up it is the record label's job to protect their artist so the "RIAA" doing the suing is entirely appropriate.

Of course none of this includes the fact that the one main source of exploitation and robbery of these artists are the record companies themselves.

reply to chemaupr
I'm not saying there isn't intent to share when one makes available. However, intent is NOT breaking the law. I might intend to jaywalk when the light turns green, telling buddies lets run across the street. Lets see if we can make it. That's not illegal. The same goes for someone making an item available. Should stores and drug companies be sued because they make ephedrine available in cough medicines? People use it to make meth. That's not it's intended purposes but hey, that's what happens with it. Just because people make an item available, knowing someone might download, doesn't mean people have. It would be like assuming all cough medicine purchasers are going to make drugs versus curing a cold. It's a possibility, but you can't prove it one way or another unless you see it happening.

reply to NOCMan
I doubt this was the only case the lawyer worked on for 3 years.

reply to fatness
Easily, they have their share file visible but the RIAA has not proved violations took place. Read above for my example. More or less, the RIAA is clicking on folders, and seeing if they CAN download. They are not establishing anyone has, according to recent reports. Therefore, just because you give someone the ability (purposeful or not) to browse your folder, doesn't mean anyone has or will. See my example for how that comes into play.

Welcome to the land of the RIAA / MPAA where proof is something only little guys need. For the rest, proof smoof.