an example of an aggressive defense against RIAA claims

[Chris Gehlker]

On Jan 6, 2008, at 11:00 PM, Craig White wrote:

> It's possible given that this case was
> dropped and then refiled by RIAA that RIAA will drop it and possibly
> have to cover the legal costs of Weed...that has happened several  
> times
> so far and my reading of this is that is entirely possible here.

Look at paragraph 19 on page 11. It says that the case was dismissed  
in September of 2006. But Weed did not have council and didn't know  
enough to object when the RIAA sought to have the case reinstated.

I agree that the RIAA will probably  drop this case. I think they will  
drop Howell unless they have some evidence that he did erase files  
though the fact that he admits to exchanging pornography may encourage  
them.

After stupidly bringing some cases against some very sympathetic  
defendants the RIAA has learned their lesson. They now seem to  be  
trolling for defendants who they  can portray in a  very bad light. In  
this regard, paragraphs 62, 63 and 64 on page 17 are interesting.

It's clear that Jammie Thomas doesn't have $222,000 and from a  
financial perspective the suit  against her was probably a looser. The  
RIAA doesn't care. They succeeded in portraying  her as a bad person  
and themselves as the victim.
--
In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take.
-Adlai Stevenson, statesman (1900-1965)