Nope. A swarm is nothing like a conference call, because you aren't interacting with every member of the swarm, but just a few members at a time - restricted by how many connections your bandwidth can actually handle at a given time. Regardless, the reported "offenses" are so separate in *TIME* that there is no guarantee that the Doe's in this case were actually online and part of the swarm at the same time as each other. Even if they were the chance that they actually shared parts of the movie between each other is so low as to be nil. You really should read the documents linked to - they might be in legalese, but it is close enough to english for just about anyone to follow. And it does explain things simply enough for anyone to be able to understand them. Yes, there is an explanation for how a BitTorrent swarm works in the actual motion and it was written in such a way as to be understandable by any of the legal professionals - including the judge in the case. And regardless of whether or not "participating in the same swarm" is a legal theory that holds water and fulfills the requirements of the rules, well... There is the fact that these "joinders" benefit only the plaintiffs in the case and create hardships for the joined defendents that break the required "fairness" of the legal system. (Yes, the legal system is supposed to be fair - surprising, no ?) So the joinder should be undone anyway :) Again, read the actual motion. These arguments are covered in depth and explained in excruciating detail inside it. To tell the truth, I will be surprised if this motion doesn't go through. Doe #4 has a *LOT* of legal precedent on his side :)

The main problem with the music industry is not the artists, they don't make any money off album sales; not because of pirating, but because the distributors suck every last penny from the sales. The RIAA is not made up of artists, they are made up of distributors. The distributors are no longer needed in digital distribution, so they are losing money, the artists are not losing money, as they always made their money from the live performances.

When you try to defend the music industry, really think about who you are defending because it isn't the artists.

That is exactly the part I was referring to. Thanks :)

I think that was just my bad wording, what I was trying to say was that he was basically telling the judges to ignore what was written down.

This clip is just begging to become the next big internet meme... Can't someone mix it up and put a good beat on it?

What do I think? I think RIAA can suck it.

Jammie doesn't get distribution rights, so why should she be paying for distribution rights?

The 8th Circuit is bound by New York Times v. Tasini, which held that placing a work in a database for public download was distribution

Good answer, and a worthy place for the money to go in this case. I second NYCL on this one.

That statement got me really curious. ...just how is it that you come to know what happens when a dinosaur dies?

Correction: the lower court ruled that making available is not distribution.