BM08

having 22 songs on her pc?

Hope they dont catch anyone with 20+GB's of music then, that could turn ugly

Nick.

Do you think they would have a problem with finding 10000+songs on my pc

BM08

i reckon they just make this up to scare people, i mean how the fck can they just look into peoples pc's individually, it would take years and years to find everyone

skeg

Like drugs you don't often get spanked if you have a gram on you or a couple of pills but if you have more and deal you go down. She had 1700+ songs in her share file, i think thats why. But yeah its still crazy and i 'found' the whole cure, van halen and pink floyd collections recently after losing songs doing a format. Joking really.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10...ng_jury_trial/

BM08

your right skeg, i mean on programmes like limewire you can set it so its NOT sharing any files

aduz

ive got a 350GB drive full of music so im fooked if they come

Chip

iTrader: (3)

What they are trying to crack down on is the people uploading/sharing the files, not the ones downloading them.

One person downloading a file costs them the value of the track in their opinion.

One person uploading/sharing the file for potentially thousands to use, costs them thousands of times the value of the track.


Thats the difference between her and most people with music on their PC

FastFordChris

agree with what chip says, although most of it is scaremungering, imagine how much it must of cost the record label to get a conviction from that one person compared to how much they was rewarded in costs?

they make an example of a few people, it send a message out to the file sharing community.

its funny though how they don't mention anywhere the millions of duff files/virus'/spy-addware the record labels upload themselves! not to mention monitoring peoples connections which i do believe conflicts with the privacy act.

have you seen the lists of companies names that pop up while running peer gardian!?

Martyn

If you want an insight into how far they do go to try and catch people, have a read of this!
Its a long read, but very interesting

http://torrentfreak.com/mediadefende...leaked-070915/

saff_cossie

Just to clarify, this is because she shared 22 songs, not had them on her PC. The sharers are the targetted ones as they are the root of the problem. If they didnt exist, the downloaders wouldnt.

tabetha

Some pillcok can fine them/her what they like, for it to be effective you need a realistic prospect of getting the fine paid.
Just big muscle flexing try and impress people at how they are clamping down.
All she needs to do is go bankrupt and this clearsall and any debt she has so may have done her a favour!!
tabetha

focusv8

The reason for the big fine is she contested the case, she was convinced they could not prove it was Actually HER that was responsible, in the end they didn't have to.

They did not take possession of her hard drive, she had had it changed after the first notice from the RIAA, she was found guilty by JURY trial, the first of it's type, and was found guilty on the fact the sharing was traced in and out of HER I.P address.

.
.

tabetha

As I said it does not matter that she has been found guilty, it is irrelevant when they have absolutely no prospect of recovering the fine.
She must be pissing herslef with laughter now, the amount of money she made them spend, I would be.
They clearly have never even looked at the economics of the case ie thousands in cost to chase zero payback.
They are hoping it will deter people, not a hope, does playing music in your car so loud others canhear it constitute a public performance ?, I hope they go after these boom boom arseholes next, pain in the arse that they are.
tabetha