How do record companies win the law suits for people downloading/sharing music files?

Question

If the song is purchased once and you allow other people, friends, whatever to save that song to their iPod, and they can in turn save it to their library, etc, etc, etc. Is this the same as 500 people downloading from LimeWire, or sharing music otherwise?? How do the record companies win the lawsuits when there are so many ways around it with out being tracked?
The above is just one example, there are others like burning CD's, etc. Any opinions?

If the song is purchased once and you allow other people, friends, whatever to save that song to their iPod, and they can in turn save it to their library, etc, etc, etc. Is this the same as 500 people downloading from LimeWire, or sharing music otherwise?? How do the record companies win the lawsuits when there are so many ways around it with out being tracked?
The above is just one example, there are others like burning CD's, etc. Any opinions?
And also, how is software like BitTorrent and Limewire still available without repremand for supplying users with the means to (in essance) illegally share files? Shouldn't the record companies be targeting these like Napster, as opposed to the users?

Answer 1

The fact that there are many ways to break the law, some harder to trace (but not impossible) does not make it legal.

The RIAA just successfully sued a woman in California for $32,000 for sharing 22 songs on kazza.

Answer 2

They can win this, actually. (Maybe.) Even though your husband had no duty to help them, when you actually do help you must do so with reasonable care (i.e. without being negligent). Was he being negligent? Maybe, maybe not, that is up to the finder of fact (jury or judge). Also, the friend may have been contributorily negligent by failing to fasten the boat correctly, so even if the friend does win, his recovery may be reduced by his contributory negligence. Another example would be this: say some kid runs out in the street, and a car is about to hit him. You run into the street and grab him, just barely avoiding him getting killed by the car. However, you break the kid's arm in the process. Surprisingly enough, you do have to pay for the kid's broken arm if it's the result of your not using reasonable care. However, some jurisdictions have modified this rule. In jurisdictions where the rule has been modified, someone who volunteers to help must be more than negligent in order to be liable (for example, "grossly" negligent or reckless). Your husband needs to get an attorney. And better friends. EDIT: Some people seem to think the insurance company needs to pay for it, or the friend needs to file an insurance claim. This doesn't matter. Liability is decided as between two people. Your husband may be liable to his friend. The insurance company may also be liable to the friend. If the insurance company pays the friend, your husband would instead be liable to the insurance company. But if the friend doesn't get the insurance company involved, then they are not an issue at all. You don't lose a law suit because you didn't make an insurance claim, and a judge can't make you get your insurance company involved. EDIT (again): The bottom line is, if your husband was negligent, he may have to pay for at least part of the damage. If he was NOT negligent, he will NOT have to pay. Whether or not he was negligent is a question of fact, usually answered with the question, "Was there something else he could have done which would have caused less damage?" Insurance companies are a red herring. And the most important thing is your husband needs to get a lawyer if he is served with a suit. EDIT (another time): And your husband should NOT pay them or admit any kind of fault without talking to a lawyer first. I presume you came here to find out if there is any cause for concern, and not for legal advice.

Answer 3

Your example, purchasing the song and transferring it to your friends, is in most cases undetectable. Some applications and audio files use DRM, which can help record companies track the activities of these files, including when and where it is copied and to / from whom. Record companies primarily use packet logs and statistics examined through file sharing networks to determine who to go after. They pick a number X and go after the top X offenders. Other methods of sharing files, especially offline ones, are very hard to detect, and even harder to acquire accurate evidence, and so are rarely targeted.

Answer 4

read the fine print on a back of a C.D. case stating it is illegal to copy or use the C.D. for commercial purposes. Its a warning and by opening the shrink wrap and breaking the security seal on the c.d. case you agree to that warning. and getting caught failing to comply with that warning gives them the right to sue you and 90% of the time they will have a good case against you