Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Chris Gehlker]

On Jan 3, 2008, at 11:13 AM, keith smith wrote:

> Seems to be something there.  The funny part is this guy sound  
> indigent and they are going to throw tens or hundreds of thousands  
> at this suite to get nothing more than a judgment that will go unpaid.
>
> Should be an interesting case.  Too bad a lawyer does not pick this  
> one up because this guy is saying he did not INTEND to share his  
> music.
>
> From a legal standpoint this might be a standard setting case.
>
> If I leave my car keys in my car in my driveway and someone steals  
> my car, they stole it.
>
> Seems like this guy is a victim not a violator of the law.  If you  
> take something from my computer I did not intend you take that is  
> theft.  If he made the music available by accident that may not  
> constitute theft however that might not constitute willful sharing.

But now the RIAA is saying that Howell deliberately "wiped" KaZaA and  
all the associated files from his computer after he was legally  
notified to preserve them. If they can prove that, I think it's game  
over for Howell.  The plaintiffs will be allowed to assume that Howell  
acted out of guilty knowledge and that the deleted files would have  
proved whatever they assert they would have proved. The irony is that  
Howell could be very dumb and they files might have proved that he  
really didn't intend to share music.
--
Conscience is thoroughly well-bred and soon leaves off talking to  
those who do not wish to hear it.
-Samuel Butler, writer (1835-1902)