Lobster From Germany, joined Oct 2008, 49 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 647 times:
The first lawsuit to actually go to trial over the RIAA lawsuits for downloading music has started in Duluth, MN. This should be interesting. I hope she wins.
"A federal courtroom in Duluth will be the scene of the very first recording industry lawsuit in the nation to go to trial.
Jury selection is underway in Duluth federal court for Jammie Thomas of Brainerd. She's accused of illegally sharing about 1,700 songs downloaded off the internet. Her attorney says they will try to force the record companies to prove that Jammie actually 'shared' the songs she downloaded.
This case is unique because it's the first time the two sides will test their arguments before a jury and it's happening right here in Duluth.
Over the past four years, the recording industry has filed more than 26,000 lawsuits against those who have been illegally downloading music.
Typically, such cases are settled out of court because the record companies will accept a few thousand dollars from the accused, and defendants want to avoid an expensive trial. "
VonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4608 posts, RR: 46 Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 565 times:
In the beginning of all this record labels wanted people to buy entire albums when (especially in this day and age) there's only 2 good songs on an album.
Then they started selling songs individually for $0.99/song on itunes etc. which was a great idea. But nooooo, they get greedy and make it impossible to download many songs unless you purchase the entire album.
Zak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1992 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 565 times:
Quoting Lobster (Thread starter): Her attorney says they will try to force the record companies to prove that Jammie actually 'shared' the songs she downloaded.
this is indeed a very good point. what proof is a textfile on the computer of the person who sues someone? its as valid as someone whos car was stolen and accuses his neighbor of stealing it fabricating a .txt file where it says that the neighbor stole the car. there is zero validity on such documents, there is a reason that canon these days offers special addons for some of their DSLR cameras to sign and protect pictures taken, to make these digital pictures worth something in court if taken properly by for example forensics experts.
the only thing that technically happens is that there is a file of a certain size and hash being checked. now if they fail to actually specify what file size etc, and just throw around some hash value, you could argue that hash x is valid for an infinite amount of files, hence the chance that the file shared was indeed the one that is claimed is mathematically infinitely slim.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Oct 2008, 49 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 371 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4608 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1992 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
