-
"If you can read this, thank a teacher....and since it's in English, thank a soldier" -
Silly silly girl.
Fine is a bit harsh though for less than $30 worth of files."See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested." -
As the judge said, it was to reflect the fact that was a right duffer....Originally posted by Moscow Mule View Post"If you can read this, thank a teacher....and since it's in English, thank a soldier"Comment
-
Since it's America, though, she'll probably counter sue Time magazine for encouraging people to use the internet, and without that she wouldn't have done it.
And / or she will sue her defence council for negligent advice, and make a few million from that.Comment
-
Ok, I think the judge commented on her poor defense, although if that was the case the Scotland coach should also have been fined....Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
"If you can read this, thank a teacher....and since it's in English, thank a soldier"Comment
-
I think you find it's called the National Lottery here.Originally posted by TheFaQQer View PostIf you think my attitude stinks, you should smell my fingers.Comment
-
I like this comment on the ruling from The Register:
I don't think he's happy.I have nothing really to add, but I want to register my belief that this is a horrible, disgusting, nasty, unrighteous, heinous, evil, foul, grotesque, sickening, atrocious, offensive, depraved, nefarious, repugnant, loathsome, villainous, wicked, sinful, vile, repulsive, egregious, abominable, dreadful, scuzzy, sleazy, no good, dirty, low down, filthy, rotten, putrid, mean, spoiled, god-awful, diseased ruling.
It sucks too. To whom do I write nasty letters, and where is my thesaurus?Comment
-
I've been following this one, and a lot of the other related cases over at http://www.recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/. It's run by a defense lawyer working on cases where the RIAA has brough court action against groups or individuals alleged to have breeched their copyright through the use of p2p file sharing applications.
This particular case hinged on the fact that the RIAA lawyer managed to convince the judge that simply making tracks available for download constituted breech of copyright regardless of whether there was any proof that any of the songs were downloaded or not and despite the fact that the victim could prove she owned legal copies of all the tracks involved in the case. They also claim $750 per song in damages on tracks that cost no more than $.30 each, again without proving how many, if any at all, were actually downloaded.
They have a whole armoury of dirty tricks that they use in these cases and a shoot first ask questions later attitude to litigation. It is common for them to bring an action, subsequently find they have no evidence to take to court and then drop the case without warning, leaving the victim with substantial legal costs for defending an action that they would have been awarded costs for had it gone to court.
To put it bluntly, these are not nice people."Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.Comment
Comment