Quote:
Originally Posted by delphidb96
HarryT,
Now here's the problem with that statement. As her words are part of the trial, if the judge decides the plaintiff is right *AND* does not clarify, as part of his ruling, that the act of ripping a CD for personal use/music backup is not covered by the ruling, under such a scenario other cases can be brought against those who *are* trying to legally back up their legally-purchased music. In essence, we could, by crass manipulation on the part of the plaintiff's lawyer and oversight by the judge, find ourselves 'made criminal' after the fact -ex post facto is, I think, the term. And that's wrong, morally wrong!
Derek
|
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. First of all, this is not a criminal case and cannot establish criminal law. Second, for this to establish civil law the case would have to go before an Appeals court judge, and possible the Supreme Court. This case is currently before a District judge.
Here is a fact that many seem to have forgotten: She is not a criminal. What she did was not a crime. If it was a crime, then the case would read US v..., not Music companies v... What she did is called copyright infringement.