an example of an aggressive defense against RIAA claims

[Craig White]

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 12:10 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> > OK, accepting that, why on earth did you say that you expected them to
> > drop the Howell case?
> >
> > You seem to flip your opinions around from one post to the next.
> 
> What I said was that unless they could prove he actually erased files  
> from his disk they would drop the case. My reasoning is simple. He is  
> a cab driver without much money, pursing the case further will not be  
> cost effective from a purely financial standpoint. The only remaining  
> point for them to win is to prove he tampered with the evidence.
----
except that in previous message, you stated...

> I think  
> they  know that their target demographic tends to be judgement proof  
> in the sense that they are young and too poor to actually pay any  
> awards that the RIAA might win. So the RIAA is effectively saying,  
> 'It's not just about money.  We will invade your privacy and trash  
> your reputation if you cross us'

so now they will drop the case because 'pursuing the case futher will
not be cost effective from a purely financial point of view'

How can I think anything other than you flip your opinions around from
one message to the next. These were your words in 2 consecutive posts.
----
> 
> So far they have only filed briefs. Actually going to court gets much  
> more expensive. At some point they may well conclude that they got  
> what they paid for and that spending more money to obtain a judgement  
> that will never be paid just isn't  worth it.
----
If you will recall (or search the archives if you must), plaintiff
already had a summary judgment which was awarded because defendant
failed to oppose the motion. Defendant opposed the award and was given a
chance to obtain counsel (and failed) and so the court narrowed the
remaining issues (there were 4) and asked for briefs.

Now having been briefed by plaintiff (the contents of which were the
subject of the Washington Post article), all that remains is defendant's
brief due presently. Barring some extremely persuasive motions from
defendant, judge will clearly find for plaintiff and it will be all
over. Defendant has not asked (and would be stupid to ask) for a jury
trial to press his position and since he has all but conceded everything
the plaintiff has submitted, there's really little left to the outcome,
expect it soon.

Craig