RIAA Hands out more Lawsuits

Syrae writes "The RIAA has unleashed yet another round of copyright infringement lawsuits against 754 people. Evidently they still had some customers that they had to make an example of. I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."

Comments

Yet Again...

[CalcMan]

...they decide to try to destroy the system with more lawsuits rather then finding a better way to use the system to their benefit.

This is insightful? Sadly, it's not.

[Svartalf]

You started out good...but then you had to screw it up by calling it "stealing".

As others have pointed out, it's not theft, it's INFRINGEMENT which is actually defined as a different crime on the books because IT IS ONE.

Here, let me illustrate for you...

If, for example, I were to take your computer away from you, you'd be deprived of the use of the same. This is STEALING .

If, for example, I were to make a copy of your magnum opus novel (if you were to write one...) without your permission and make a couple more copies to hand out to my friends, you're not deprived of the work or the use thereof. You might have been deprived of the financial rewards caused by the artificial scarcity of the same brought about by the Copyright you have on the work- but you can always get more people to sign off on your copies. In this instance, I've not stolen from you. I have INFRINGED upon your rights to control the production and distribution of your given work of art- which are artificial rights established for the People on behalf of the Government to further the arts.

The moment you got that wrong, any and all valid points you might have had went clean out the window- as you obviously don't have a clue about what IS and ISN'T the law in the first place. Is it Morally wrong? You damn betcha. Is it stealing? Not even close.