9 comments

• 

  V

  1 year ago

  Under normal conditions, I'd say that's pretty damning evidence, except that its a very odd coincidence that she writes for RIAA v. the people. Although it would shock me if she was really singled out as a target, I wouldn't put it past the RIAA, and its technologically very possible. I'd like to see a detailed report of their methodology: how they knew what they knew at what points.
  
  In the much more likely chase, its a shame that the first person to real fight the RIAA head to head would choose to do so when they're not actually innocent.
  reply
• 

  eric

  1 year ago

  She also testified she never had Kazaa on her computer. This could be verified forensically? If she's perjuring herself, that's worse than distributing music. OTOH, if Kazaa software was never on the computer, it raises interesting questions.
  reply
• 

  Tim Lee

  1 year ago

  Eric, she had her hard drive replaced (for legitimate reasons, apparently) after the alleged file-sharing incident.
  reply
• 

  MikeT

  1 year ago

  Looks like she didn't have her ducks in a row before she decided to take them on. A pretty stupid move. If the RIAA ends up winning, they could land some devastating damages on her that would, in effect, ruin her life.
  reply
• 

  eric

  1 year ago

  What kind of damages are they going to put on this woman? If the RIAA tries to lay $1,000,000 on her, does this do any good for public relations? Would people feel the punishment fit the alleged crime?
  
  Looks like a lose-lose for the RIAA publicity-wise. Another self-inflicted black eye. Yes, the defendant loses too. Everyone loses.
  reply
• 

  sccarper

  1 year ago

  You are forgetting that the copyright registrations don't match the names of the plaintiffs and the case hinges on the tenuous "making available" theory of copyright infringement. Even if an irresponsible jury were to find for the plaintiff in spite of a lack of proper copyright registration, there are appealable elements including the jury instructions.
  reply
• 

  eric

  1 year ago

  It is difficult to understand the "making available" theory, though some judges have endorsed it. It seems akin to "intent to distribute" which is another thing entirely from actual distribution. Since many people don't understand their computers and how to set up or restrict sharing functions on P2P programs, there may have been no conscious intent, let alone actual distribution. (On the other hand, if she was running KaZaa at all, then the defendant lied under oath.)
  reply
• 

  Tim Lee

  1 year ago

  sccarper, that might be a valid defense under the law, but judging from the media coverage so far, but it's not the defense she's raising. Her defense is that she didn't do it.
  
  And you're telling me that none of the several dozen songs she's accused of sharing had been registered properly?
  reply
• 

  Mark Levitt

  1 year ago

  I don't think it's so clear that she did it.
  
  As a home user, her computer probably does not have security settings that require a password and probably boots into the account of whatever user first set up the computer. It's reasonable to assume she'd use the same Windows username as she has for all her online accounts.
  
  Kazaa, when installed, uses the Windows username of the account it is installed under. It doesn't require you to specify the username, it doesn't even ask you.
  
  So, it's possible that someone else, possibly a friend, ex-boyfriend, child, friend of a child, etc installed Kaaza. She might not have noticed or realized it was still running.
  reply