Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Craig White]

On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 11:51 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> 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.
----
The RIAA is saying lots of things but that doesn't make them true.

It seems that this is never gonna go to trial and some award is likely
to be made from plaintiff's motion for summary judgment since defendant
clearly doesn't have the benefit of counsel, has already conceded most
of the issues of contention AND will undoubtedly be unqualified to
articulate a proper argument against the flawed motion that now is
before the court.

Craig