The whole “copyright theft” is bogus and everybody knows it.

That’s the problem, everybody doesn’t know that and little (little to the unknowing masses mind you) things like that are exactly how the RIAA tries to snow people over with false data and lies. In that case with the single mother you can bet your last dollar that the plaintiff side tried to stack the jury with people that knew next to nothing about copyrights and computers. That way it was much easier to convience the jury of their viewpoint.

The tactic of choice of the RIAA is to prey on the ignorance of people. They love going to judges and politicians because they can “educate” them on technology issues they don’t know about. Look at how quickly they try to drop their case and run whenever they come across a defendant that is knowledgeble and rich enough to fight back.

And this is one reason I have no pity for the RIAA. Copyright infringment is wrong and they could have defended theirs in a perfectly sensible and not legally questionable manner (not to mention they could have taken the lead in digital distribution by embracing it). But no they resorted to lying, false data, outrageous lawsuits, bribing(okay so they call it lobbying but really…), and who knows what else in order protect their copyrights.

First of all, the original Interstate Transportation conviction was federal (i.e. “national” as you call it) so the claim that they threw out the conviction on the basis that it wasn’t “national” is clearly untrue. Another lie. Oh well, there you go again.

Justice Blackburn in Dowling v. United States wrote:
The phonorecords in question were not “stolen, converted or taken by fraud” for purposes of [section] 2314. The section’s language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple “goods, wares, [or] merchandise,” interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

I think most people can see pretty well that he said copyright infringement isn’t theft, no matter how you try to spin it. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own set of facts.

Before talking about a ruling, maybe you should know what it covered and what the court actually said, instead of taking one sentance [sic] out of the ruling and ignoring everything else.

Everyone, look at RT’s first post on this subject above. That’s kind of exactly what he was doing. Funny, huh? I gotta tell you RT, your shilling doesn’t do much good for the public image of your industry.