Well, we lost the case...Important things to note about the burden of proof here though, that does give me some hope in the future:
The hard drive in question was not presented at trial by either party, though Thomas used her new one to show the jury how fast it copies songs from CDs. That was an effort to counter an industry witness's assertion that the songs on the old drive got their too fast to have come from CDs she owned - and therefore must have been downloaded illegally.It is interesting to me that the "proof" that this person had downloaded music was based on how quickly that file "appeared" on her hard drive...
Record companies said Thomas was sent an instant message in February 2005, warning her that she was violating copyright law. Her hard drive was replaced the following month, not in 2004, as she said in the deposition.
This does bode well for future cases involving this, as it is undoubtedly easier and faster to copy certain data across certain connections (ie SCSI, iSCSI, or even SATA) on someone's machine from a cd to a drive then a majority of providers are offering in bandwidth.
I for one would be safe from this legal attack given the way I've designed my own machines, so it is interesting to me that they used this as a key part of the case.
I don't see future cases being this easy for them though, given that specific info...
2 comments:
Wow...their whole case was appearing on the machine too quickly? A good lawyer would have killed them
A good lawyer would have prevented this horescrap case from going to trial.
Thats like getting a speeding ticket on a toll road for getting to one toll boothe to another to quickly (happened to my uncle)
Post a Comment