What the RIAA really said.

[Chris Gehlker]

On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Craig White wrote:

> except of course that it is disputed...

You are absolutely correct. In fact I had read that and simply forgot.  
Subsequently I read this:

"It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of  
Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer.  Exhibit B  
to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is a series of screen shots showing the sound  
recording and other files found in the KaZaA shared folder on  
Defendant’s computer on January 30, 2006.  (SOF, Doc. No. 31, at ¶¶ 4-  
6); Exhibit 12 to SOF at ¶¶ 13, 17-18.)  Virtually all of the sound  
recordings on Exhibit B are in the “.mp3” format.  (Exhibit 10 to SOF,  
showing virtually all audio files with the “.mp3” extension.)   
Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their  
original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use.   
(Howell Dep. 107:24 to 110:2; 114:1 to 116:16).  The .mp3 format is a  
“compressed format [that] allows for rapid transmission of digital  
audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any  
other file transfer protocol.”  Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011.  Once  
Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3  
format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the  
authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs.  Moreover, Defendant had  
no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted recordings from  
his KaZaA shared folder."

I did fail to make the distinction between it being 'undisputed' that  
the files were on his computer and it being 'undisputed' that they  
were in his Kazaa shared folder. I guess he is asserting that the RIAA  
photoshopped Exhibit B and that they are not real screen shots.

> Why are you so eager to convict?

Huh? This is a civil case. No one is at risk of being convicted.
--
In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take.
-Adlai Stevenson, statesman (1900-1965)