arstechnica.com — The defense worked on dismantling many of the RIAA's chief claims today, including those relating to her possession of music which was supposedly stolen, as well as the now-debunked claim that Thomas replaced her hard drive to avoid legal scrutiny.
Oct 3, 2007 View in Crawl 4
spuy767Oct 4, 2007
I think that the bigger question here, which has yet to be answered, is, "Who in the f**k is still using KaZaA?"
weeeezzllOct 4, 2007
tehnico:Older CD burner drives often could not rip Audio CDs anywhere near as fast as they could read Data CDs. One of my first CD burners (Plexor 2x 2x 12x) could only rip audio at 1x. On top of that, you still have to compress the ripped audio to mp3 or some other format, which does take processor cycles. I clearly remember spending nearly 1.5 hours ripping a single CD on my old 433 Celly. About 60 minute to rip as 1x, and 30-45 to compress the tracks to mp3.
taranwalkerOct 4, 2007
...amsterdam's right...the bingo dude just trolls in the comments, and says things to get attention...
travelsonicOct 4, 2007
"You can be sued for downloading a song you wrote if you don't own the copyright."No, this is not completely true.If the owner of thaqt copyright allows it, downloading the particular copyrghted works is perfeclt legal.
jcypherOct 4, 2007
I wonder if the loser (presumably RIAA) could be liable for reasonable legal fees of the defendant??