interesting edit , captcrank , so if its done on a small level , or for personal use , they probaly won't come after you , maybe they broke up a cinema camcorder ring they were tracking for a few years , sounds crazy but u never know , so are businesses who loss money able to direct our resources away from solving more serious crime , amazing !
As I tried to explain earlier swapping music on the internet is stealing in full public view. One might speculate, that there's a vicious circle in play here. To wit, if they're that stupid and blatant, (the sharers), we're going to punish them for it.(The RIAA).
That fact that this kid's lawyer is a Harvard Law Professor, doesn't really impress me. First of all academic types many times are a bit too liberal thinking, and they're also pretty cloistered. As I said earlier, he would have been better off with a Federal Defender, they know the judges, they know the probation department, and in general, they're in a better position to wheel and deal on a defendant's behalf. As near as I can tell they made an example out of the "prof" in the process. Here's how not to be taken seriously, claim that it's really "fair use". "Fair use" is making yourself a backup, one copy.
This generation seems to be comprised almost exclusively of sociopaths. From what I can gather, people think they're entitled to share, keep, or steal whatever type of intellectual property they come across, and the worst part, blatantly, and in full public view.
Now, try and wrap your head around this. Just because the original artist may have in fact have a claim against the RIAA for not forwarding their royalties, that doesn't mean the any third party in entitled to steal the material. It still belongs to the original owner, and by extension the RIAA, the agent for enforcement of copyright.
Well, the RIAA didn't give the royalties to the artist, so that means I can make as many copies as I want because the RIAA is stealing from the artist. OK, I hope that sounds as stupid to you as it does to me. Not only that, but if I read that statement over and over, I don;t think I can brainwash myself into believing it.
I sincerely wish that anybody involved in the pro-unfettered sharing of other peoples property, would develop some intellectual property of their own. because then, I haven't got a shred of doubt, that they'd be preaching a different sermon!
