Was the lady nabbed for DOWNloading, as Tom said, or upping

by adam8281 Dec 12, 2005 12:22PM PST

Tom said in today's podcast that the women who just got ruled against for $22k is one of the first cases where somebody got busted for downloading, not uploading, or "sharing." Is this right though, was she really nabbed for downloading, or is that just the media's shorthand for "sharing files she had downloaded." From my understanding, it is nearly impossible for the RIAA to detect what you are DOWNloading (unless you're using bittorrent which MAKES you upload the file even as you are downloading it). This woman was using Kazaa, right? Isn't it more likely that what she was detected doing was SHARING files that she had downloaded, files that probably automatically went into her "share" folder? I know the excuse she was giving the judge was that she was just "sampling" files, and that implies that she was being charged with DOWNloading, but I really don't think this was the case. It seems most likely to me that she was detected uploading files she had illegally downloaded, and it's in that context that she made the excuse "I just downloaded them to sample them." It's pretty hard for the RIAA to sue you for DOWNloading, because they have to be certain that you don't already own the rights to the file, which you do if you happen to own the CD. However, if they catch you UPloading, it is obvious that you are doing something which you do not have the right to do, because owning a CD doesn't give you the right to share copies of it without limit.

Anyway, can someone clarify? Is it downloading, or uploading? I know the media usually reports on RIAA cases saying "so and so was sued for downloading music," but I think this is usually inaccurate, usually I think the person is sued for uploading, and reporters just don't catch the difference between downloading and sharing. Am I right?

Discussion is locked

Of course it matters - If I was a watchmater I'd be angrier at the guy on the streetcorner selling the fugazies than the individual who bought one. If I was an author, I'd be angrier at the person who was passing out free copies of my books to anyone who wanted one than each individual who took a copy from him. If I was a car owner, I'd be more upset if someone "borrowed" my car and set up a program where he loaned it out to hundreds of people around town whenever they needed a car, than I would be at each individual person who happened to use my car this way (sorry, that's a more convoluted example, and that's because it is RIDICULOUS to compare COPYING and sharing music with TAKING somebody's car, but to go on...) If I was a music exec. or artist, I'd be more upset with the person uploading and making copies of the music available to millions of people than at individuals who download a song from him.

There is a pretty big difference between being a sharer who is making copyrighted material available to the world, and the individual who downloads, but does not share, some of that material. Personally, I think it's ridiculous that even UPloaders are being sued the way they are, but if it is not happening to downloaders, it strengthens my resolve to, insofar as possible, never give a cent to the RIAA again. And no, I don't feel right about illegally downloading music, so this puts me in kind of a bind. Guess I'll stick to allofmp3 until something better comes along where I can pay a FAIR price for my music - and not be ripped off at $17/CD (or $.99 for crappy DRM'd mp3) - and support the ARTISTS I like without lining the pockets of these filthy people who are suing their own fans and customers out the wazzoo.

Was the lady nabbed for DOWNloading, as Tom said, or upping

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info