I think they begin count after the latest recording or version.
It's like downloading Bach, the music was written hundreds of years ago, but the recordings were usually made less than fifty years ago meaning that it's still illegal, no matter how true to the original it is.
I am not starting nothing by saying this.Am not going to call you a NOOB even.But if you read this on fasttrack(you spelled it wrong).....don't you think it would be in our part of the Forum under filesharing?Well guess what?It is.....about 10 times somebody has Posted this.
The 12 year old was sued for sharing 1000 songs by contemporary artists, it wasn't nursery rhymes (unless there is another 12 year old being sued) the girl's parents have since settled for $2000.
I thought he had a slightly different angle.
that's why I replied.
Good job she didn't have the nursery rhymes then.
They would have crucified her. Chinese whispers.
Bet they thought about it thoughOriginally posted by nigel123@10 September 2003 - 14:35
It's quite surprising that the RIAA did not demand all her toys as well.
I am waiting for some altruistic lawyerly type to jump in and save these individuals from the crushing and oppressive weight of the RIAA's jackboots.
(Oh, you mean theres no money in helping them? Lawyers don't do anything for free? Its news to me.)
I suspect the ham-handed tactics of the RIAA will return to haunt them.
They seem almost gleeful at the prospect of suing the bejesus out of the smallest violators.
Barack Obama: Over-par on the golf course, sub-par everywhere else.
David Bowie's comments on tv last night were to the effect that he thinks suing your customers is a step on the slippery road to hell.
Edit: the is for the sliipery road, not for Bowie saying it.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.