you admitted you haven't read the case transcripts and your now telling me what didn't come up in the court case.

Wow that funny.

btw the source of the court minutes are not that hard to find

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/



btw the article you quoted said she was convicted 1700 violations the 1st time and now your actually contridicting your own source.

Is this for real?

Yawn... she has to bring up fair use at first so everything can be discovered uniquely about it. She never brought up fair use before the first case or during it. When it was brought in the 2nd case, it was squashed.

You've never read a fair use case.

just in case you don't have the basic skills to find the full reference list of case transcripts and rulings

http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=...irgin_v_Thomas

Well you should proved you didn't read shit then... but that you can use google.

On October 4, 2007...

"Judge Davis is going to instruct you that to prove
copyright the record companies have to show two things,
valid ownership of their copyrights and registration and
that the defendant violated one of the exclusive copyright
rights, either the right of reproduction or copying or the
right of distribution. We've shown both here."

"Every one of the record
companies' representatives came here and told you that they
own or control the copyrights of all 24 sound recordings at
issue."

"In fact, Ladies and Gentlemen, the evidence also
shows you that before this trial the defendant admitted that
she had no evidence to contest valid ownership, valid
registration, or that the registrations were filed in
advance. She told you that before trial."

"What statutory damages do you award Capitol
Records, Incorporated, for each copyrighted work (up to
$150,000)? $9,250."

Can we be done now?

that the point you moron

this case is about striking down every bad precedent

if this was about getting off on the "crime" the fair use defence would be the first defence she will bring up


it the very last defence they will make, after they have gone thru the 35 bad precedents they want to reverse.

they claim lack of involvement, to establish a new baseline of adequate evidence.


They appeal each bad precedent one at a time(name one lawyer who has ever wasted time like that when trying to get their clients off), they strike it down and go for a new trial. (classic precedent reversal process)


look at the arguements they are making they are the weakest ones they can make (so they can keep the case alive to target the next stronger precedent)

none of the evidence should be considered because it entrapment

please if that one had held water no criminal investigation by police could ever go forward, they get evidence about you by setting up a sting.


you can't produce a single court case reference to dispute the RPVR case i have repeatedly referenced.

Just in case your own source of the court transcripts don't do it for you...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

On October 4, 2007, after 5 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict finding her liable for willful infringement, and awarded statutory damages in the amount of $9,250 for each of the 24 songs, for a total of $222,000.

With sources at the bottom.


You did exactly zero reading...

No.... fair use is out in this, the Fed Judge in the 3rd round didn't give a shit either because, her stated uses did not fall under fair use.

You have no idea what they did, are doing, will do... you haven't read anything.

wow so let look at the facts you claimed they had no proof that they downloaded 1702 songs , and they only filed the complaint for the 24 songs she was convicted of

http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=...wnloadData.pdf


http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=...8MSUserLog.pdf


http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=...wnloadData.pdf

they accused her of 1702 she was only convicted of 24 the second time.

btw quoting the RIAA arguement to the jury (opening /closing statements) isn't the proof you claim it is, it the representation of the facts, as they are best suited to make your arguement, ignoring the defences counter points is not valid.

like i said they addressed the original issues for those 24 songs.

i suggest you take the time to actually read the case transcript and look at the exhibits before you post again.

http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=...cript1-278.pdf
first 278 pages

Yeah, and I was right... thanks for posting the log files of Sentry software that tracked her 1700 uses, 24 of which they could prove she distrusted to others. I didn't make the claim, I quoted what the judge said.

Yes, the Transcript says 24 recordings... I quoted the Judge's ruling.

Why would I look at your link, when I can look at the ruling? P.S. your link says 25 recordings is what they sued for as well. Ie: first case. P.P.S. I couldn't find the words fair use either.

This is boring now...

more documentation about proof presented about the 1702 files downloaded

So?

They still didn't get tossed because of fair use.

read the transcript they had proof that 1700 songs were downloaded by another person from her share because media sentry DOWNLOADED ALL 1702 songs from her share , sampled it to make sure it was really are their copyright filed.


my god your stupid that the first case referenced by ray beckerman in his blog that the second case.

they reference evidence, from the first trial, coming from defendents expertise in that case

you are doing such substandard reading of the transcript that you don't even realize that fact

actually read the transcript before posting.

There is only one way that proof that they WERE shared would not be an infringement and that is fair use

that the point, the action is the same, the act just isn't an infringement.

basically the reason, you don't see the words fair use is those arguements were made in pre trial motions, they lost, so they couldn't go after her for those songs.

Okay? That has nothing to do with fair use either way. You're building a great argument for yourself.




Great that they referenced evidence from the first case in the 2nd? However, I have no idea wtf that has to do with anything. Good job for lawyers?

I'm aware they had a retrial, not sure why you're arguing that.

Again this had nothing to do with fair use. The songs in question weren't copyright infringement because infringement couldn't be proven on them.

Nothing to do with fair use, at all, not even a tiny bit. If they could have proven those songs were downloaded by others, they would have been attached - period! Because they couldn't, they had no proof she ever even had the songs - other than dl records - and that's not proof enough.

That's called a lack of evidence, not fair use.

So now, fair use is what you guys are using as your argument?

How is allowing people to bypass a payment system fair use? When she shared on peer to peer, that's what she was doing.

Maybe you should read the definition of fair use:

Fair use, a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term fair use originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

It's limited use of a copyrighted material in another artist's work. It's not paying for an artist's work, and then distributing it for free to everyone else.

It's not the value of the songs, its the negative value of the crime she committed. She stole 24 songs (1 offence per song), copied them, and distributed them (more crime). I'm glad they made an example of this thief.