jcow79 wrote:
The point is that it's difficult to claim that you don't know that downloading music unauthorized is illegal when it's typically plastered all over the file sharing software that you are using. Or they could just simply ask "Are you aware that downloading music without paying for it is illegal?" If their answer is yes, then it's pretty apparent what the intent was. If they say no, well then you have to prove otherwise. Judging by the sum awarded it appears they were able to prove intent....And I don't know but maybe she even admitted to knowing it was illegal. I'm simply pointing out that the statutes appear to allow even higher penalties than what she already has IF intent can be proven.
Did you even read the article?
Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.
This is their argument for proving intent. The standards being used are appalling for any courtroom setting.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
jcow79 wrote:This is their argument for proving intent. The standards being used are appalling for any courtroom setting.
What the defense failed to demonstrate is that she was using Kazaa for any reason OTHER than sharing music. They found 24 copyrighted songs that WERE available for others to download and MediaSentry DID download one from her. If they had found a ton of freeware and free to distribute indie music then she may have had a defense. She could have played dumb and pretended she didn't realize she had copyrighted content available for others to download and that she uses Kazaa for "legit" purposes. But all the evidence appears to point to her using it ONLY for copyrighted music sharing. When you sign up for the service it's makes it apparent that sharing copyrighted material is illegal. Even if she didn't KNOW she was sharing them, she was still guilty of the sharing.....the only gray area is the intent and the jury didn't buy it.
Yes, the penalty is freaking outrageous. As a jury member I don't think I would have raised it any higher than the original judgment, perhaps even lowered it. But it's still within statute. The industry knows they aren't going to get any money it and I'll bet they opt to drop the judgment. This strays from my original point which was about the motivation of the music industry NOT about the competency of the jury.
