Originally posted by nonoitall:

---

And vice versa.

---

Quote:

---

The question that comes immediately to mind is this. If the RIAA's arguments are so clearly in line with both written and case law why do they have to reach so far to prove it?

---

Originally posted by varnull:

---

Quality stuff from Beckerman. he moved his blog.. anybody know where it went?

---

Quote:

---

In particular the RIAA has been spending a lot of time defending arguments about using a "making available" argument where they claim that simply sharing files is enough to qualify as copyright infringement.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In particular the RIAA has been spending a lot of time defending arguments about using a "making available" argument where they claim that simply sharing files is enough to qualify as copyright infringement.

---

So if the people won, then could the ruling be over-turned for those that were convicted for "making available"? What about settlements? Would they still owe the money because they agreed to settle?

---

Quote:

---

Disclaimer: IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer - why does that look so dirty?)

I'm pretty sure that anyone who has settled is pretty much screwed since no judicial ruling was involved. Only one lawsuit, the Jammie Thomas case, has gone to jury. The making available argument was upheld as a key argument, but it appears the judge in that case is getting ready to give her a new trial on the grounds that was an error of law. You also have to remember that her lawyer in the original case didn't want to be there, and was actually trying to have himself removed from the case before he ever set foot in the courtroom.

---

Quote:

---

Here in the u.s.a i find that the RIAA should be called the new mob.

---

Originally posted by drach:

---

Quote:

---

Here in the u.s.a i find that the RIAA should be called the new mob.

---

Of course, the Racketeering Industry Association of America.

---