DISQUS

In other words, "our use of these laws was undermining support for the use of these laws..."

Yeah, but I'll be Transgender Issue Sensitivity Training is a good place to pick of girls.. Oh wait...

Ah well. If we're all going to die tomorrow, then Tequila it is...

I think we should expand this proposal further. I mean, why limit it to just copyright infringement? Or consumers? How about if we as consumers send three messages to the ISP of a company putting out false and misleading statements in a press release, the ISP cuts off the company's Internet access.

I'm sure all of the record companies would agree to this. After all, they never lie about their activities. Especially Sony/BMG. :)

And yes, join ORG today.

Perhaps you need to read this article in Wired: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/riaa-s...

The Washington Post fell for their damage control attempts once they realised what the backlash would be.

Two points: The attorney in the Jamie Thomas filesharing case specifically asked if she had permission to copy the CDs to her computer. Surely that's a nonsense question if she has the right to do so.

Second, the RIAA is claiming the Sony testimony about copying CDs to a computer is theft was "a mistake". I think that's a lie. I think it was in Sony and the RIAAs interest to make that statement (by a lawyer and under oath). And it's now in their interest to retract it.

The idea that Sony's head of litigation made such a massive error while testifying in a court of law strains credibility.

and indeed they’ve argued against liability in such a case on a few occasions (once on the theory that a license to do so was implied).

Again, where it was convenient for them to take that position, they do. But read the Wired article. When asked point blank, they talk about being "allowed" to copy your CDs, but they don't admit that you have a right to do so (i.e., that copyright law does not give them the right to prevent you).

It would be like Ford coming out and saying "Actually, you don't have the right to drive your car across state lines, but don't worry, we won't sue you for it." Would you accept that?

Couldn't she have sued him at the time and then had a claim againt any possible future earnings? In other words, she sues him in 1989, but he doesn't have the money to pay, then when he comes into money, he's got to pay her first?

I don't think it's so clear that she did it.

As a home user, her computer probably does not have security settings that require a password and probably boots into the account of whatever user first set up the computer. It's reasonable to assume she'd use the same Windows username as she has for all her online accounts.

Kazaa, when installed, uses the Windows username of the account it is installed under. It doesn't require you to specify the username, it doesn't even ask you.

So, it's possible that someone else, possibly a friend, ex-boyfriend, child, friend of a child, etc installed Kaaza. She might not have noticed or realized it was still running.