As Canada considers Copyright, America fights about it: Harvard Law Prof. Charles Nesson brings to trial the case of a downloader fighting back against the music industry.

   

If people want to avoid prosecution of stealing music, all they have to do is go to Itunes and pay .99 cents for the song. Or a greatly discounted price for the whole album.

   

That's a pretty fascinating talk with the professor there.

When they first introduced the concept at the beginning, my first thought was "Rots o ruck. You haven't gotta prayer". As he started explaining though, I found myself being talked into it. I mean jeez, could he actually win? The spin-off implications of a win here would turn everything on its ear.

Just the tiny possibility he might win seems like such a major event I have to wonder why the mainstream media isn't covering this. When you consider the implications of this you have to ask what sort of bizarro world are we living in that the Michael Jackson story is being shoved down our throats while this is going on.

You want to talk about Michael Jackson's effect on music? It's just a fly speck next to what it means to the future of media if this guy somehow wins.

   

That was my though as well that they haven't a hope in hell but as he elaborated the basis of the argument it really fell into place. I think he has a real shot here.

   

I don't think it matters if he wins or not, just by challenging the record companies he wins. The record companies will have to dish out more than what they will collect to argue this case so really in the end they lose. Not to mention it brings awareness to a situation where people are getting sued by these recording companies for amounts that just don't add up. $10,000 for 7 songs, that's frigging ludicrous and people who find themselves in this position really don't have any means of defending themselves against these giant corporations. That in my mind is a complete manipulation of the law and it's intent. Now what if for every case that the record companies raised the defendants had someone who stood up and took their case on pro bono? That at least would level the playing field and it would discourage the record companies from going after people in cases where it would cost them more to win than what they could collect.

   

I think if he should somehow win this case on the grounds he's chosen it has the potential to break more ground than the betamax case did. Without that one there'd be no such thing as a DVR, or Tivo.

The spin-offs from this one could be phenomenal. It could stretch out to all recordable media.

   

I don't think he has a prayer. The guidelines determining fair use do not include sharing of files for entertainment purposes.
That being said, the way the IRAA operates is bullshit. The kid's computer will be accessed to determine he didn't illegally download any more songs. Sorry but that now reaches into the realm of invasion of privacy.
This also isn't about artists getting their cut. The artists actually make very little off of CD sales. The bulk of their income comes from concerts and merchandising.
Over the years I have had to purchase several copies of Deep Purple's Machine Head and Black Sabbaths's Paranoid because they kept getting stolen. At this point, I have no problem downloading these entire cd's for free when I consider I MORE than paid for those cd's over the years.

Suing kids seems to smack of desperation however. $1428.57 per song he downloaded
hardly seems reasonable or rational. They should only be allowed to sue for the actual cost of downloading those tunes. The actions of ther IRAA are just another example of how government allows big business to run rough shod over the general public.