Jeff_B
Premium
join:2000-09-24
Brick, NJ
| Yeah right
quote:
Jane Doe, according to the papers filed in court, was a Kazaa user but tried to prevent other people from accessing files on her computer and used the Kazaa file-swapping software as a music player largely to listen to songs she had ripped from her own CDs
It is good to see someone standing up for themselves but good luck with that defense. |
|
Archivis
Your Daddy
Premium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Good luck proving otherwise. I'll admit that if you didn't use Kazaa for filesharing that it still has a good file-manager/media player if you're not sharing it.
The defense might work since they'd have to prove that she willingly shared her files. Doesn't kazaa automaticly share files by default?
--
The Internet Hitman | TIHM chat | Going Against the Grind |
|
Jeff_B
Premium
join:2000-09-24
Brick, NJ | I can't remember if the official version of Kazaa shares by default. I use Kazaa Lite and the version I have disables sharing by default. |
|
Bowersdmstec
join:2001-02-02
Washington, IL | Thats weird, every version of K Lite that I have used sets my upload to 3 uploads at the same time by default.
Whiteice |
|
DenverDialup
join:2003-06-06
Littleton, CO
clubs: | I think every version of Kazaa or Kazaa Lite shares the contents of "My Shared Folder" by default, unless you turn it off (as I have done)... |
|
Jeff_B
Premium
join:2000-09-24
Brick, NJ | reply to Bowersdmstec
Yes you are right. I just checked with a clean install. It has been a while since I installed it. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
|  reply to Jeff_B
I can see one of the reasons why this person doesn't want her name released. This is one of the lamest excuses I have ever heard. Yes Kazaa does not share your files by default you have to let it scan your files, very dangerous if you don't have your exclusions set. but with all of the free players out their, Winamp, db poweramp, etc, etc this story just does not wash. She would have been better off batting her teeny-bopper eyes and crying, I didn't know, I didn't know....... Lord voldemort is controlling me by an imperious curse.
--
low Brass Rules!
Irish Terriers do to!!!
[text was edited by author 2003-08-23 11:06:27] |
|
Omega
Displaced Ohioan
Premium
join:2002-07-30
Cheyenne, WY
clubs: | I agree, the defense is pretty lame. But at least someone is challenging them.
why you would use Kazaa for a media player is beyond me. |
|
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs: | reply to Transmaster
"Kazaa does not share by default"
kazaa does share by default |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to Omega
I think the defense is as valid as any other. Just because other people would do things differently doesn't mean this person did exactly as she said. The RIAA needs to realize they cannot just arbitrarily sue someone just because they 'suspect' copyright infringement. According to the RIAA you are guilty if you have the files and they are shared mode. Doesn't matter if nobody actually downloads files from you computer. That, if you ask me, is an even lamer offense.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
cableblows3
join:2001-06-17
Indianapolis, IN
|  reply to Omega
said by Omega  :
I agree, the defense is pretty lame. But at least someone is challenging them.
why you would use Kazaa for a media player is beyond me.
maybe they don't have phonehome software like most of the others? |
|
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT
| reply to Omega
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
She has Kazaa, the MP3s and was sharing... nobody uses Kazaa just to listen to their own collection... a likely story, she has...not.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
'»www.dv-clips.com
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
|
|
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| said by 91439306 :
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
Hypothetical:
There's a dead body in my driveway, a bullet went right through him and is unrecoverable, so ballistic tests are not possible. I own a handgun. A round is missing from the clip. They spread some fluid on my hand and prove that I've used a firearm in the last 12 hours, and nobody's fingerprints are on the weapon but mine.
That still won't wash. The prosecution still needs to do their homework and actually bother to PROVE something, unless they want to look real stupid when the owner of the firing range where I practice, as well as the grounds keeper who remembers my jokes and the bar waitress who flirts with me, all testify that I was target-practicing on their premises at the time my neighbor heard the gunshot, proving me guilty of perforating cardboard.
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt. 
--
That's no longer true; with enough money, you can fool all the people all the time. |
|
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Very true, I like your analogy. And I am tired the way big businesses decide that its alright to screw the customers. The RIAA also seems to forget about the fair use laws, they should also have to prove that all these people have never owned any of the music they have, in any type of media. For instance, I own GTA Vice City. The game has some good 80's music on it, and anytime I want to listen to that, I just have to pop the game in and hop in a car and let the music play. Well, thats kind of a pain in the ass, so I just went and downloaded a few of the songs from the game. If I already own the "right" to listen to the music by owning the game, cant I also trnasfer said music to an mp3 and listen to it on my pc? Also, many years ago, when I was about 13 or 14, I bought STP's first album, about 4 years later, my cousins stereo decided it wasnt gonna let me have the cd back, so it got scratched when I had to take it out. So the other day I went and downloaded all the songs I liked off of that album. According to them, that is my "right" since I paid for the damn cd. Just because I dont still have the ruined disk or a receipt doesnt mean that I didnt own the stupid thing. Thats what the RIAA should have to prove in court.
--
what doesn't this button do? |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| reply to ravital
said by ravital :
said by 91439306 :
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
Hypothetical:
There's a dead body in my driveway, a bullet went right through him and is unrecoverable, so ballistic tests are not possible. I own a handgun. A round is missing from the clip. They spread some fluid on my hand and prove that I've used a firearm in the last 12 hours, and nobody's fingerprints are on the weapon but mine.
That still won't wash. The prosecution still needs to do their homework and actually bother to PROVE something, unless they want to look real stupid when the owner of the firing range where I practice, as well as the grounds keeper who remembers my jokes and the bar waitress who flirts with me, all testify that I was target-practicing on their premises at the time my neighbor heard the gunshot, proving me guilty of perforating cardboard.
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt.
Theres one problem with that and that is the people who the RIAA are going after ARE sharing files. Sure, if you are using Kazaa, you may or may not be sharing anything. The key is they are going after people who are sharing and they have proof of it.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| reply to ravital
said by ravital :
said by 91439306 :
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
Hypothetical:
There's a dead body in my driveway, a bullet went right through him and is unrecoverable, so ballistic tests are not possible. I own a handgun. A round is missing from the clip. They spread some fluid on my hand and prove that I've used a firearm in the last 12 hours, and nobody's fingerprints are on the weapon but mine.
That still won't wash. The prosecution still needs to do their homework and actually bother to PROVE something, unless they want to look real stupid when the owner of the firing range where I practice, as well as the grounds keeper who remembers my jokes and the bar waitress who flirts with me, all testify that I was target-practicing on their premises at the time my neighbor heard the gunshot, proving me guilty of perforating cardboard.
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt.
Murder can be proven on circumstantial evidence. If the prosecutor had enough in your handgun case, he could get a conviction, even without the weapon. Now obviously, if you had an alibi that would come out early, and the prosecution would not waste its time. While the actual bullet would be nice, with modern forensics (assuming you actually fired it) I suspect the prosecutor could build a decent case.
Regardless, you're mixing up apples and oranges. Reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence in criminal, not civil cases. The RIAA has a much lower standard of evidence then if she was criminally charged.
As an example, that is why there was not enough evidence to toss O.J. in jail, but there was enough for him to loss the wrongful death civil suit. |
|
IndyMike
@12.55.x.x | reply to ravital
But we're talking CIVIL law here, not criminal. Perponderence of evidence is all it takes.
But the jump from "she could have" to "she did" is what they better prove ...... otherwise ...... no case. |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to ravital
said by ravital :
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt.
I would so love to agree with you. This is the RIAA though -- if they say it is so, who are we to disagree? <sigh>
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| reply to joebear29
said by joebear29 :
Regardless, you're mixing up apples and oranges. Reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence in criminal, not civil cases. The RIAA has a much lower standard of evidence then if she was criminally charged.
Good point, I stand corrected. And to be honest, I was responding to someone's analogy of a drug dealer caught with scales and other paraphernalia... Equally a criminal case and not a civil one.
Now to expand on your earlier point, sure, many innocent folks are serving time for crimes they didn't commit. I know the score, it's not evidence or truth or justice, it's the ability of an attorney (on either side) to persuade a jury. [I keep thinking of the policewoman from Milwaukee who was convicted on evidence that she owned a red sweatsuit when she claimed to own a green one. The smashing piece of evidence presented by the prosecutor: He held up a black and white photo of her jogging and told the jury that was a red sweatsuit, and they all nodded.]
So as long as it's just a matter of the attorney's, er, gonads, that's all she needs to worry about, a better attorney. Wouldn't surprise me if she finds it difficult to afford one. And given the assault on civil rights that the DMCA represents (this being the law that is the basis for all those subpoenas), it wouldn't surprise me either if a good one offered his/her services pro bono. Maybe not on this case, but on the next one.
In addition, since everyone so cleverly points out that this is civil and not criminal - not complaining, you understand, glad to see my error pointed out to me, but why do I keep hearing that filesharing is a CRIME CRIME CRIME all the time? Why do the DMCA and the NET Act carry criminal penalties? As long as we're on that subject, anyone care to explain this?
--
That's no longer true; with enough money, you can fool all the people all the time.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-23 18:04:24] |
|
JE
Can I Taste It? Mmmm
Premium
join:2000-12-15
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to ravital
said by ravital :
said by 91439306 :
It sounds to me like the case of the drug dealer: he had the scales, the raw marijuana, and $500 cash laying around, therefore he must be intending to sell.
Hypothetical:
There's a dead body in my driveway, a bullet went right through him and is unrecoverable, so ballistic tests are not possible. I own a handgun. A round is missing from the clip. They spread some fluid on my hand and prove that I've used a firearm in the last 12 hours, and nobody's fingerprints are on the weapon but mine.
That still won't wash. The prosecution still needs to do their homework and actually bother to PROVE something, unless they want to look real stupid when the owner of the firing range where I practice, as well as the grounds keeper who remembers my jokes and the bar waitress who flirts with me, all testify that I was target-practicing on their premises at the time my neighbor heard the gunshot, proving me guilty of perforating cardboard.
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of reasonable doubt.
But if you're BLACK and this happened, you're GUILTY - no questions asked!
This is America, fella, we recognize the concept of racial injustice, lol
Thank you
JE
--
Like R&B and Hip Hop? Well, check out my station... It's called: Urban Hitz Radio! »www.urbanhitzradio.us |
|
