Posted by George Hester on 09/05/05 17:06

"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:3o08oiF3g93tU1@individual.net...
> Loco Jones wrote:
> > Could this be the one to watch?
> >
> >
http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1507708/20050816/index.jhtml?headlines=tru
> > e&_requestid=334269
> > (same as: http://tinyurl.com/bm4w5 )
> >
> > Yes, it's KaZaa in the spotlight again, but this could apply to any P2P
> > application targeted:
> > < quote >
> >
> > "As an exhibit in the complaint, they typed up a list of six songs that
> > RIAA investigators downloaded from a shared account that was supposedly
on
> > my client's computer," Rogers said. "The complaint said those files were
> > there for sharing, but they have no evidence that anyone did share them.
> > For them to prove copyright infringement, they have to show that there
was
> > unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted file to the public. If they
knew
> > some 16-year-old who downloaded those songs from my client's drive, that
> > would be copyright infringement, but if their own investigators did it,
> > it's not distribution to the public. A copyright owner cannot infringe
on
> > their own copyright."
> > < end quote >
> >
> > If this case ever makes it way *all* through the legal system, the
results
> > could be very interesting indeed.
> >
> Here is a collection of court documents relating to this case:
> http://riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/
>
> There are few interesting points - the RIAA submitted ordinary
> screen-grabs of KaZaa as evidence. - Suggesting that they don't use bots.
> Despite about 1100 tracks being shared, they are only claiming
> infringement on one track from each record company (probably for economy
> of court time).
> The court hearing of May 6th 2005 seemed to hinge on the judge's
> misunderstanding of Kazaa usernames and what they mean - she appeared to
> be under the impression that this meant it was not the defendant's ISP
> account.
> Anyway, despite the news story, the defendent's lawyers have moved for
> dismissal on the basis that the RIAA did not specify the times of the
> infringements.
>
> I would ceratinly think that the fact that a wifi connection was used
> would be significant. - I see no mention of the argument about no proof
> that the tracks have been downloaded by anyone - perhaps this collection
> is incomplete though.
>
> I agree it is one to watch.
>
>
>

Court: I suggest you get a lwayer.

Defendent: What kind of lawyer.?

Court: A lawyer that does a little bit of this and a little bit of that.

Me: LOL:

http://riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/transcript050506.txt

--
George Hester
_________________________________

[Back to original message]