I hope she drags these greedy bastards over the red hot coals.

Then the cases should be pursued in criminal court, rather than civil court. Criminal courts have a MUCH higher burden of proof. In civil court, if a jury finds that the defendant was just slightly more likely than not to have done something, then they can find in favor of the plaintiff. Fifty percent likelihood plus a hunch is simply not good enough, especially when it comes to downloaded music, since the RIAA lacks evidence that illegal file sharing has a detrimental effect on music sales.

The RIAA needs to adhere to appropriate and ethical standards of discovery. Their alleged tactics are worse than the crime they are alleging has been committed. Too many people accept the RIAA's claims at face value, without examining the evidence. If the accused have committed crimes, then they should receive their due process in the criminal justice system. Heck, the RIAA wouldn't even need to foot the legal bill for if they filed criminal charges, and could still recover damages. That they avoid criminal prosecutions should raise a red flag about the validity of their claims.

Incidentally, an empirical study by researchers from Harvard Business School and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill concludes that file sharing does not affect sales in a statistically significant manner. Another (less academically vigorous) examination by George Ziemann concludes that there has been a decrease in new music releases that corresponds to the decrease in music sales. These conclusions would indicate that, while file sharing of copyrighted music is a violation of the letter of the law, it is within the spirit of Fair Use, and the law should be amended to reflect such.

CDs can be copied under Fair Use, provided the copies are not distributed, except with the original included.

However, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes it illegal to bypass any digital copy protection, even if the material on the copy protected media is not, in itself, protected by copyright. Copy protected "CD"s are not, by definition, Compact Discs, as they do not adhere the the Red Book standard. If a such a disc is labeled or sold as a Compact Disc, then the consumer should be entitled to a refund. Surprisingly, Sony, the most well known violator of the Red Book standard cowrote the standard.

All of these lawsuits have always felt ugly. Feelings aside, as an IT consultant, I've run across 5 instances personally that went something like this: A customer has me come over to their house for routine PC maintenence. I notice a cute little icon in the system tray for a file sharing service (insert and name). Come to find out, a child or grand child who visited last summer for a few days had installed it. Here's the problem. The customer leagally ripped some cd's to their system. By default, these ripped tracks were placed in the 'my music' folder. The file sharing software that my customer had no idea about was by default sharing the 'my music' folder. Since the file sharing program was loading at start up, my customers were inadvertantly sharing all their music.

Without knowing how the RIAA gathers information, it's unclear as to whether or not this type of unintended sharing would be prosecuted. Heck, the file sharing software could even install itself over a spyware/malware downloader. Who then gets sued?

Finally, I also run a mobile DJ business on the side. I attempted to contact via phone and email, ASCAP, SESAC, BMI, and RIAA about some specific question reguarding copyright, puplic playback, digital downloads and such. Not a single one of them answered the phone or the emails. So to me, this isn't a campaign to raise awarness and force compliance. It's a money making witchhunt and I think they should start being looked at for RICO or anti-trust.

Well, over the months of research I've done on licensing for public use, I have a handle on most of it I 'THINK". There are still some grey areas. Other DJ's I've spoken to have given me their interpretation of the rules. Some given me facts that they got from who knows where. Therein lies the problem. Why is it so obsucure? If any of those agencies were concerned about compliance, why can't they give me an answer? Are they just leaveing it grey so they have an avenue to sue at the leisure?

For instance, can a DJ play a purchased DRM free digital download for a crowd? What about a CD purchased from a major retailer. They say right on them for personal use. Does this mean that I can only play music purchased from authorized places? If so where are they? What about CD compilations made by the DJ. Canada has a license that covers this. USA doesn't. Does this mean I can compile CD's without getting sued or does this mean I can't consolodate my CD's?

These are some of the questions I wanted to get answered from the horses mouth directly and not hearsay from DJ Stranger. Where are the answers to these questions written? Everything is so grey it's left me to interprut my own way and that's the way it will be. Why does it have to be this way? How hardr is it? Question, answer. All my questions are yes or no. It would take someone in the know 45 seconds to answer.

P.S. I know about the venue licensing. That's not what my questions were about.

Sorry if this wnt off topic. It's just my personal expierence as to why I think the RIAA and other copyright enforcement agencies really don't care about compliance. Just $$$.

I agree. As I mentioned above I run a DJ company so I have a huge interest in people, especially competitors, not stealing music. I can't compete with a fellow DJ if he is downloading music and I'm paying 2,000-3,000 a year to keep up.

Yes, performers make the bulk of their income from concerts and not from record sales. That is still not a valid reason to download, just a rationalization for doing it. Most CD's only have a few songs that you like. It's not like this is something new. For those who have purchased music over the decades, this has always been the case. Illegally downloading is just another attempt at rationalization for getting a song or two for free. Don't want to pay for the CD? Don't buy it! These performers have a right to make money no matter how little it is. If a group wants their music out there for free, let them set it up as so. When a person works for a living, they have the right to make every cent they are entitled to. Would you want to do your job and then have the amount on your paycheck shorted, regardless if it's only a small amount? Just because the rules of the music industry don't fit your way of thinking, doesn't mean you can circumvent them. Only want one song? Find the legal means to obtain it.