Comments on: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear “Innocent Infringer” Case

By: EliteEliza

EliteEliza — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 07:57:27 +0000

Sorry to tell ya xaul, but ignorance of reality is not an applicable excuse anywhere. And punishing people for downloading a few songs, is beyond a joke. This would be like arresting someone for having a mixtape back in the ’80s.

By: xaul

xaul — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 03:13:20 +0000

sorry to tell ya folks, but ignorance of law is not an applicable excuse in the united states. no wonder they told her what they did.

By: guenthar

guenthar — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 06:16:04 +0000

joebloe: You can’t set precedent with something that is already in law and anyone can already use that defense. Proving it is another matter but most teenagers don’t have the knowledge of law to determine that downloading a song is illegal. This is a large part of the reason that in criminal law people under 18 have far less harsh sentences then adults do. If this was stealing she may get a short time in Juvenile Hall and maybe community service but not getting her life ruined through high fines like she is getting here.

By: Judge law scumbags...

Judge law scumbags... — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 01:12:23 +0000

these parasites have made how much? seriously these cases are beyond fucked up.. how on earth do these dead beat degenerates live with themselves? 37 downloaded songs? = ($27,750) ..$200 would have been bad enough and even that was actually ($7400) in total.

Looks like a hammer needs to thrown in the faces of all self righteous shit heads who approve of this complete scumbaggery. Those involved in these proceedings have probably already earned salaries in excess of the fined amount gained from tax payer funds.

Stupid dumb fucking public..wake the fuck up assholes, get outside these courts and make these prosecuting shit heads and dumb scum judges feel the wrath of the price they will pay for their insidious money making scumbaggery. This has nothing to do with justice, that will come when people wake up to the law policy making wankers that have taken it upon themselves to find a way of appeasing the criminal corruption monopoly parasites that have pulled every underhanded trick in the book to get rich.. selling out both the creative producers of new content and the consumers who choose to buy it(paying rip off fees to middle men parasites or choose to use it freely and find other ways of supporting those who made the content.

By: Judge law scum...

Judge law scum... — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 01:11:06 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 14:44:12 +0000

It’s an expensive addiction including the concerts and is better spent on updates to Microsoft WIndows, new desktops and laptops and either paying or accessing by alternatives for the net for similar music stimulations. I don’t blame her for justifying a technology the obsoletes rather quickly and costs to a small furtune to continue with including cell phone tech. No other utilities or tech including for now television is in this expensive recycling pattern since before the net boom and shrinkout began.

By: joebloe

joebloe — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:23:50 +0000

If they do it for ONE PERSON though, they will have to start doing it for other people. Because a legal precedent will have been set. This can open up a can of worms within itself, because everyone will claim to be an “innocent infringer” weather they are or not.

I do not agree with the idiotic ways the RIAA puts fines on people or sues them into oblivion. Matter of fact, one day I hope we are rid of them altogether.

But since she did break the law and got caught doing it, this legal defense at best…is a very weak one.

By: Zan

Zan — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:40:00 +0000

way to go, she was a teen you were still gonna sting her for a large fine, now your ruin her for life over 37 songs, how do you sleep at night.