Free Jammie

Since details have been rather vague on the issue with the HDD, I do have to ask this question to you.

It has been known for years that participating in any sort of peer-to-peer file-sharing service containing copyrighted works (whether visual or audtio) is illegal. That's why Napster and Aimster were shut down and so many other P2P sites/applications began getting attacked. Whether or not you like the fact that the RIAA is a bunch of blood-thirsty mongrols is not the point; the law is what matters here. Participating in the illegal distribution of copyrighted works is stealing, plain and simple. It doesn't really matter the source of the "money," but rather the fact that the act is being performed.

That being said, how can one knowingly engage in this sort of activity and then be supprised that they are getting punished for this? Then on top of that, to cry about some sort of injustice is just impractical. How is this justified?


I would like to say that while I disagree with the points made so far in support of Jammie, I have nothing against people supporting her by donating money to help out. I just have an incredible disdaint for people who believe that there is nothing illegal about file-sharing music. It's the exact same as bootlegging movies.

There is no doubt that file sharing is illegal and the person who does it should be brought to trial to answer. That is easy enough.

But are they the ones being taken to trial. Are the ones who downloaded music sued or is an owner of an ISP number sued. Because someopne bought an isp account with AOL doesn't automatically say that same person downloaded. If we take that every person who ownes the isp account then we can charge that person with downloading child pornography.
It could have been the guy next door who trespasssed on your homes network, but the ISP owner has to go to jail when it was the guy next door.

You car was used in a hit and run, because it was your car you have to go to jail even though you were no where near your car.

A gun is registered to you and was used in a murder. The owner has to go to jail though.

Because someone ownes an ISP doesn't mean they download anything even though the RIAA says ownership alone clearly demonstrates guilt.

The problem is is that it could have been the ISP owner that downloaded, but then it could also have been the guy next door, my childrens friends, my cousin when he spent a night here.

I do not think America is ready for conviction by suspicion.

How about loud music came from this apartment building so because you live there you get a ticket. Are we ready for this?

Myke wrote:It has been known for years that participating in any sort of peer-to-peer file-sharing service containing copyrighted works (whether visual or audtio) is illegal.

Your wording is slightly incorrect. Participating in any peer-to-peer service is not, at this time, illegal. You are only breaking the law if you distribute copyrighted files. If you share only legal files, such as home videos, or original music, you are not doing anything wrong, even if 99% of the other users of that service are sharing illegal files.

Also, it should be noted that technically "copyrighted" doesn't automatically equal "illegal". Radiohead still owns the copyright to their album In Rainbows, even though they let people download it. A copyright means that the author gets to decide how their work can be copied and distributed. If the author chooses to give that work away and let people copy it, that's their right.

Myke wrote:Then on top of that, to cry about some sort of injustice is just impractical. How is this justified?

In my opinion, it's unjust because the media corporations have subverted the original intent of copyright, extended copyright terms to ridiculous lengths, bought laws that harm consumers and stifle innovation, not to mention being outright liars about many things.

If they don't treat people fairly, why should they expect to be treated fairly?

syber wrote:There is no doubt that file sharing is illegal and the person who does it should be brought to trial to answer.

See above, file sharing isn't always illegal.

Myke wrote:But are they the ones being taken to trial. Are the ones who downloaded music sued or is an owner of an ISP number sued.

I think you mean an IP address. An ISP is an Internet Service Provider.