Quote:
Originally Posted by zinglebarb
yeah I do not dispute that but the law is tighter on the distributer that much is clear. The case you pointed to clearly says the damages are per song and it also clearly states its cuz it was shared ie distributed
|
Yes, but let's not lose sight of the facts here.
The prosecution did not have her physical drive (the distributing "host") ergo her culpability as a distributor was proven by records obtained and provided by Safenet.
This has set a precedent in more than one key area - ie. they don't need to catch you with or find you in possession of the materials - whether you are uploading them or not. They simply require a trail in the shape of an IP or logging identifier.
Distribution is not a numbers game - one person sharing a copy with one other person is distributing that copy.
She "shared / distributed" 1,702 files but was found guilty of "sharing / distributing" only 24 of those. What made the other 1,678 not worthy of a fine?