On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 22:12 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Craig White wrote:
>
> > The stipulation regarding Kazaa by the defendant states that the
> > defendant was interested solely in exchange of pornography. It's clear
> > that Kazaa had other uses besides illegally sharing music files.
>
> I can't find any evidence for this on the <http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
> > site which claims to have a complete archive of the public
> documents in Atlantic V. Howell. Please provide a link.
>
> Note that the court found that Howell had a "right to use for personal
> enjoyment copyrighted works on CDs he purchased":
> <http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_070820OrderGrantSumJudg
> >
>
> Note that the court found "Howell’s final contention is that a
> computer malfunction or a third party put his personal files into his
> shared folder. However, no evidence has been presented in support of
> that scenario." It seems clear that Howell couldn't present any
> evidence that the files got in his Kazaa shared folder other than by
> his putting them there and the court clearly didn't believe his
> 'malfunction or third party' contention.
>
> As far as I can tell, the documents are all there for anybody to
> review and this is a very pedestrian case of a guy who used Kazaa and
> got caught.
----
by the way, you referenced an order granting summary judgement that was
vacated by the same court just a few days later...
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071004OrderVacateOrder
Just sayin...
Craig
(unless the dude gets competent counsel, the outcome is unlikely to
change)
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)