What the RIAA really said.

[Craig White]

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 11:10 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> > where on earth did you get the idea that the files actually were
> > physically moved? You are assuming facts that are not supported by the
> > evidence and even worse, you already know that the 'folders' that a
> > program considers accessible or in this case shared, can be dispersed
> > anywhere. It's a concept called 'virtual folders', I'm disappointed  
> > that
> > you seem to struggle getting your head around the concept.
> 
> 
> It's undisputed. The RIAA's expert witness testified that the the  
> files were actually in the Kazaa shared folder and Howell didn't  
> dispute it. He merely argued that "malfunction" or "third party" had  
> put them there. Later he says that the Kazaa program itself put them  
> there.[1]
> 
> Then the RIAA's expert comes back and says that Kazaa logs whether the  
> files were copied into the shared folder on 1st run or later but that  
> Howell deleted the logs.
> 
> I understand the point you are making about 'virtual folders'  
> perfectly well. I just don't see any relevance since the RIAA has  
> asserted all along that the actual files were in the shared folder.
> 
> The RIAA's expert also says that Kazaa won't  share from other folders  
> besides the 'shared' folder without the users explicit choice.
> 
> [1]  iTunes on first run searches all attached storage for audio files  
> and copies them into the ' iTunes Music' folder. I don't doubt that  
> Kazaa works in a similar manner with regard to the 'shared'  folder.  
> The RIAA expert seems to concede as much. But he goes on to assert  
> that such files are clearly  visible in the shared folder and that  
> Howell deleted logs which would have shown that he also moved or  
> copied some files there later.
----
except of course that it is disputed...

again, you aren't reading the references...

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_070831ReconsidMot

see top of page 2 - dispute seems clear enough to me, where defendent
Howell states...

"The songs in question are not, were not, and have never been in the
Kazaa shared folder. That is why I stated it must be a malfunction. I
also supplied a list of the 'C:\My Music' folder that contains the
songs." (note emphasis was supplied by defendant in brief, but not
reflected in plain text e-mail).

Why are you so eager to convict? This clearly is a sap user who is
getting toasted by a corporation looking to shred him and humiliate him
in the public arena, not for financial recompense but solely to have a
chilling effect on the public at large.

Craig