Re:Software is eating the car
by at-fates-hands on Thursday June 10, 2021 @08:20PM
(#27467785)
As I remember those times, they didn't go after people for simply downloading music, they were going after the people who were actively distributing music on file sharing services.
There's a much harder burden of proof for the RIAA when they sue people over simply downloading songs or albums when the user can easily make the case for fair use. I mean, how many albums, 8-tracks, cassettes and CD's did you buy of the same artist and album? I know I did it thousands of times.
The burden gets a lot easier when you can show the person was actively distributing essentially pirated music to other users - propagating what is by legal definition, illegal activity.
Re:Software is eating the car
by wolverine876 on Friday June 11, 2021 @12:37AM
(#27469346)
> As I remember those times, they didn't go after people for simply downloading music, they were going after the people who were actively distributing music on file sharing services.
As I remember, at least some cases were complete BS. Some people hardly knew what file sharing was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thoma...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_v._Tenenbaum
These were widely covered because most people just settled, and there were high hopes for something putting a damper on the lawsuits... from the page about the second case " It was only the second file-sharing case (after Capitol v. Thomas) to go to verdict in the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) anti-downloading litigation campaign"
So 2 for 2 there were found in favor of the RIAA, for huge damages even after appeal.
More recently, even ISPs are getting hit hard: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/1-billion-piracy...