What the RIAA really said.

[Craig White]

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)