Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherCat
You may be thinking of the RIAA's project early this century where they decided to randomly select around 250 minor infringers to make examples of them; they had previously only concerned themselves with those who shared on a large scale.
It turned out that there were single mothers and children included (the parents of children were told that writing a cheque to the RIAA for several thousand dollars would avoid their being taken to court) and it was, of course, a public relations disaster. From the large music groups Warner Music strongly opposed the project, claiming it was silly to attack potential customers, and the longstanding head of RIAA at the time also opposed it and resigned in protest. Other music groups, particularly the main protagonist Universal, even lost artists, many of which also resented attacks of that type on their fans.
A lesson to be learned for those who have the peripheral vision of a snake in a pipe and can only see strict literal interpretations of the law in front of them; matters such as wider interpretation and actual implementation of legislation, and in business competitive strategies and marketing are hidden from them by the pipe's walls.
|
I had heard it was a rock group that took this woman and her son to court. She said in court that he had to steal the music because she couldn't afford to buy it for him.
Needless to say that one was found guilty but my guess would be "he wasn't just "stealing" for personal use. "
So we may be thinking of different cases.