[mosaix]

Originally Posted by daisybee

I understand your argument mosaix-but I disagree with the specifics of this case-I am not saying that you should go to HMV and load up on a stack of CD's and that is fine.

The fact is, she denied doing it-and refused to settle as all the others did. The fact that no proof was required to find her guilty is awful-and yes I think that the bands mentioned in the article have got even more free publicity off the back of her problems, how much is that worth to the record companies?

What if file sharing software was imported on to your computer without your knowledge? That's hardly new is it? It appears that you would be liable if it were found and be subject to the same fate as her-simply because the possibility of file sharing existed on your personal pc.

The fine is ludicrous, and the time and resources spent by the record industry in pursuing this case would be better spent on dealing with those guilty of non virtual piracy-not least because of the links between piracy and organised crime. That would have been a far more worthy and moral victory.

Artists have a right to expect that their work's copyright is respected-however musical artists also make money from live performances, which must surely benefit positively from more people knowing who they are as side effect of file sharing? We aren't talking about plagerism-they still recieve recognition for the work.Musicians in history have never had it as good as those at the successful end of the spectrum these days-I won't feel sorry for them.

Daisybee I agree with you about this specific case. But I can't agree about the copying.