Originally Posted by sprockkets
For your two blah blah blah posts, you need to read up on actual
court cases, not just what the law says. Without proof that any downloading took place, there cannot be any damages assessed to a person by the RIAA.
Of course, just like you, the RIAA thinks making available = infringement. It doesn't, and court case after court case has proven this. That's why mediasentry collects a log of those who share on torrents to collect proof of infringement.
Unlike you, I'm not talking about RIAA cases, I'm talking about COPYRIGHT cases - which clearly only one of us has actually studied in any depth. I have a more than 10 year history of criticizing the RIAA's wrongheaded approach towards online infringement (google "Nine Things The Record Industry Should Note About The Future Of Music").
Copyright infringement cases historically were never pursued against END USERS (mostly because the technology for infringing was never available on any significant scale to this group). The RIAA law suits violate this unspoken tradition, and that's why they'll continue to have difficulties.
However, the RIAA's challenges are not a good indicator of what would happen in more traditional copyright cases such as this, with a well-heeled corporation as a defender.
Pull your head out of your ass, not liking what I have to say won't make it any less true. And btw, you cannot understand copyright law by just reading the RIAA's bullshit cases.
Same case with bootleggers that sell actual copies of "Lion King" (what the heck are you like 12?); unless they actually sell something in front of the authorities they cannot be arrested.
As to your last (characteristically dumb) point, you should talk to Brooklyn DA, Charles Hynes. Apparently, he didn't get your memo on bootleggers rights - [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/ny...nollywood.html
. I hope you don't plan to make a career representing bootleggers, just stick to talking out of your ass on the internet.