[lidya-sggf]

Wasn´t the very first filesharng case the one against a 16 year old girl or so?

[erepsysoulpfbs]

Proteus, that case never reached a verdict I believe, I think the RIAA called it off from media pressure, or they settled.

[Pyuvjzwf]

Whether she's guilty or not, the RIAA will come off looking like a bully and this will do nothing to stop file sharing. They know she will not be able to pay, so what is the point? This is merely an intimidation tactic.

[adolfadsermens]

I think you missed my point. When I say it's an intimidation tactic, I'm talking Nazi style. I'm talking big governement (or in this case corporation) holding down the little people.

[jobsfancy]

Couldnt she argue that it was for her own use and she didnt want it freely available to all.

She could also argue that pink unicorns installed Kazaa and the music on her computer without her knowledge or consent.

[Unwiseevove]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
I think you missed my point. When I say it's an intimidation tactic, I'm talking Nazi style. I'm talking big governement (or in this case corporation) holding down the little people. Nazi style would have been to hang her and ten other random neighbors from lampposts.

I'm not missing the point at all. The RIAA knows from the outset that the people they are targeting are judgment proof, and that the RIAA and record companies will spend a ton of money on legal fees and never have a chance of collecting even a small percent of their costs, let alone a money judgment.

They know that going in, and that's just fine from their point of view. They will get publicity, the more the merrier, and in their minds, likely put a little fear of God into some of the file sharing types.

[Shark&Nike]

Even better, she needs a much stronger doubt to avoid culpability. In a criminal case she would only need something reasonable.

[JoZertekAdv]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Not a criminal case. What? Reasonable doubt isn't good enough for you guys?

[Gofthooxdix]

Too high a standard for civil cases.

[cigsstorenick]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Not in a civil case. I'm sorry. My bad.

I really do need to pay better attention sometimes.

[DrunkMans]

I should have known by the style of cause it was a civil case. I just had a brain fart.

[Pharmaciest2007]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Couldnt she argue that it was for her own use and she didnt want it freely available to all.

She could also argue that pink unicorns installed Kazaa and the music on her computer without her knowledge or consent. I'm so glad to have a comment from the peanut gallery. Perhaps you dont know the history behind peer to peer networking and are ignorant that it wasnt designed for uses such as Kazaa and others have put it to.

[Aleksis]

IMO, it doesn't look like the verdict is going to hold up. There's a major issue in how the presiding judge in the case advised the jury as far as the standard of liability:

According to Ars, the judge's instruction, which was handed out to counsel last night, initially said:

"The mere act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network without license from copyright owners does not violate the copyright owners' exclusive right to distribution. An actual transfer must take place."

But the Judge this morning, accepting Richard Gabriel's argument, changed it:

Gabriel cited Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com and the original Napster case to support the RIAA's view that making a file available for distribution over a peer-to-peer network was a violation of the Copyright Act. "If there's an index and something behind it, that's distribution," argued Gabriel.

The judge seemed particularly interested in UMG v. Lindor, and while that particular case was being discussed, Matt Oppenheim of the RIAA was consulting the "anti-RIAA blog" The Recording Industry vs The People. Gabriel noted that he was lead counsel in that case as well and that the decision cited in the case wasn't applicable to the matter at hand.

Toder disagreed, but at the end, Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright owner's exclusive copyright." That decision should make it easier for the jury to find Thomas liable.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...to-accept.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-wraps-up.html Only problem is, the case that actually gave the RIAA's argument teeth was one the RIAA's lawyer didn't mention - Atlantic v. Howell. And there's a good reason they didn't: They won it in August, but then it got vacated.

In Atlantic v. Howell, the pro se case in which a judge stated that "making available" was actionable, the pro se defendant sent the judge copies of the amicus curiae briefs which had been submitted in Elektra v. Barker, and the Judge vacated his previous order, setting the matter down for further oral argument on October 18th.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...o-se-case.html
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp...derVacateOrder Translation: No way in hell this verdict survives an appeal.

[tomsmuidh]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think somewhere around £50 would be appropriate for the level of criminality here, but this stinks of corporate control of justice. A bit of proportion is in order here, methinks - to fine someone an amount that is life-destroying is completely out of order Hey don't blame the justice system; it's just applying statute from the corporate-controlled legislature. If people don't like it they could vote differently, or whatever.

[xquFzpNw]

This case will without any doubt go to appeal at the least she has a case due to the absurd amount of recovery they are making her pay.

If she gets a sympathetic judge or a retrial and a sympthetic jury, she could still walk owing nothing.

[casinochniks]

Originally posted by reismark
IMO, it doesn't look like the verdict is going to hold up. There's a major issue in how the presiding judge in the case advised the jury as far as the standard of liability:


Only problem is, the case that actually gave the RIAA's argument teeth was one the RIAA's lawyer didn't mention - Atlantic v. Howell. And there's a good reason they didn't: They won it in August, but then it got vacated.

Translation: No way in hell this verdict survives an appeal. Why do you think a pretrial ruling in a pending case in a 9th circuit district court would have any precedence over a pending case in an 8th circuit district court?

[Tamawaipsemek]

A trademark infringer with a wharehouse full of conterfit jeans did not have to sell any before getting nailed, nor was it required to nail a copyright infriger with a suitcase full of bootleg CDs. Absent something controverting that standard in the infringment for other digtital music such as online, I do not see why an actual sale would be required in this case.

[MadMark]

I don't get the reference.

[shenacatro]

They don't expect the individual to pay it.

[xtrudood]

JM, you're intelligent. Do I really have to walk this through with you?