If it were merely a case of copyright infringement I might agree with you, but by now because of their general behaviour, I'm afraid I have a major bias against the RIAA. These people are cretins.

They claim they represent artists, and then they try to sneak a clause into the contracts that artists' works are works for hire, so the copyrights belong to the corporations and not the artists. Fortunately the artists caught it and through a major offensive and a lot of money spent got it retracted.

I admit to a bias, and whenever I read about a dispute with RIAA, my money is on the RIAA having acted badly.


>Wellll......
>
>Looks like she's claiming she didn't do it. If that's the case then this is not right. If she did violate copyright, however, then I don't see being poor, depressed, and disabled is an excuse. I don't want a poor and depressed invalid stealing my stuff and then whining that the rules shouldn't apply, do you? "Waaa...that's not fair!" ... Well, "fair" is that we're all afforded equal rights and equal protections. You can't argue that because of personal circumstances that you are immune from being judged for wrongdoing. I know, now you guys are gonna think I'm a heartless bastard but I think there's a principle involved.
>
>
>>Wonder how these creeps can sleep at night sometimes...
>>
>>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/12/04/riaa-wins-default-judgment