What the RIAA really said.

[Chris Gehlker]

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.
--
No matter how far you have gone on the wrong road, turn back.
  -Turkish proverb