Sharman Networks (Kazaa's parent) has already reached a settlement with the RIAA. After they reached the settlement, the RIAA began to send their settlement offers to the users, at which time Kazaa countersued, saying the RIAA was misusing the software to entrap users. That lawsuit was dismissed.

I think anyone who used Kazaa, particularly before its specific evils were exploited and revealed, should sue the living hell out of them, though I doubt a lawsuit would have legs. I'm sure they had an airtight Terms of Use agreement that no one bothered to read. I never used it or wanted to use it, but I cleaned up a lot of computers where it had been installed along with its slimy spyware partners.

I would like to read those court papers, too. I am still troubled by the wording of their supplemental brief, mostly because it follows their expert's testimony in Jammie Thomas' trial about how ripping a CD is “only stealing one copy”. I'm still concerned that there is a broadening of what they intend to go after.

Going back to what you said in the beginning of this strand, I agree with you that the only way to really steer clear of the RIAA is to purchase, download, and share non-RIAA music. Unfortunately for lots of people out there, it's too late for that, because they did share music, whether by accident or design. I just don't want to find myself sued in five years because I acted in accordance with existing terms of use and shared with others in what I believed to be authorized use, only to discover later that the rules were changed.

In the original court filing, Howell was also warned to not touch his computer or this installation, in very clear non-legal text. He immediately deleted all of Kazaa. Under law, that is enough to provide proof for the RIAA. Howell's response then was, I didn't do anything, I have no money to pay anything.

The only defense he brought out was a court case that had to do with a manufacturing company, nothing to do with his situation (probably under advice from some idiot on the internet). He basically provided absolutely no proof for his defense.

Though the courts give great leniency when it comes to a person representing themselves pro se, at some point in time, the defendant has to mount a defense. Howell has not, though from what I can see, the court has bent over backwards to help this person stop shooting himself in the foot. The RIAA is only required to provide proof of their complaint, not provide the defense for Howell.

The danger with something like this, and this is the second time this has happened, is the person representing themselves pro se introduces broad arguments that force courts into asking questions: were these unauthorized copies. Yes, it was Howell that introduced this question, not the RIAA.

At that point, it's been the RIAA who has been actually trying to back away from this issue, and focus purely on the distribution angle.

The Washington Post should have read all of these court papers before writing what they did. To misconstrue this as the RIAA going after Howell just because he ripped the music from the CDs was grossly inaccurate.

The RIAA has never gone after anyone other than the fire sharing sites. This case is absolutely no different than any other the organization has brought. There is no increased harassment — just a complete disregard to fact checking.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Kazaa isn't getting the same level of vilification based on this event. What you're saying is that the software put this person at risk of being sued.

Sharman Networks (Kazaa's parent) has already reached a settlement with the RIAA. After they reached the settlement, the RIAA began to send their settlement offers to the users, at which time Kazaa countersued, saying the RIAA was misusing the software to entrap users. That lawsuit was dismissed.

I think anyone who used Kazaa, particularly before its specific evils were exploited and revealed, should sue the living hell out of them, though I doubt a lawsuit would have legs. I'm sure they had an airtight Terms of Use agreement that no one bothered to read. I never used it or wanted to use it, but I cleaned up a lot of computers where it had been installed along with its slimy spyware partners.

I would like to read those court papers, too. I am still troubled by the wording of their supplemental brief, mostly because it follows their expert's testimony in Jammie Thomas' trial about how ripping a CD is “only stealing one copy”. I'm still concerned that there is a broadening of what they intend to go after.

Going back to what you said in the beginning of this strand, I agree with you that the only way to really steer clear of the RIAA is to purchase, download, and share non-RIAA music. Unfortunately for lots of people out there, it's too late for that, because they did share music, whether by accident or design. I just don't want to find myself sued in five years because I acted in accordance with existing terms of use and shared with others in what I believed to be authorized use, only to discover later that the rules were changed.

Sharman Networks (Kazaa's parent) has already reached a settlement with the RIAA. After they reached the settlement, the RIAA began to send their settlement offers to the users, at which time Kazaa countersued, saying the RIAA was misusing the software to entrap users. That lawsuit was dismissed.

I think anyone who used Kazaa, particularly before its specific evils were exploited and revealed, should sue the living hell out of them, though I doubt a lawsuit would have legs. I'm sure they had an airtight Terms of Use agreement that no one bothered to read. I never used it or wanted to use it, but I cleaned up a lot of computers where it had been installed along with its slimy spyware partners.

I would like to read those court papers, too. I am still troubled by the wording of their supplemental brief, mostly because it follows their expert's testimony in Jammie Thomas' trial about how ripping a CD is “only stealing one copy”. I'm still concerned that there is a broadening of what they intend to go after.

Going back to what you said in the beginning of this strand, I agree with you that the only way to really steer clear of the RIAA is to purchase, download, and share non-RIAA music. Unfortunately for lots of people out there, it's too late for that, because they did share music, whether by accident or design. I just don't want to find myself sued in five years because I acted in accordance with existing terms of use and shared with others in what I believed to be authorized use, only to discover later that the rules were changed.

In the original court filing, Howell was also warned to not touch his computer or this installation, in very clear non-legal text. He immediately deleted all of Kazaa. Under law, that is enough to provide proof for the RIAA. Howell's response then was, I didn't do anything, I have no money to pay anything.

The only defense he brought out was a court case that had to do with a manufacturing company, nothing to do with his situation (probably under advice from some idiot on the internet). He basically provided absolutely no proof for his defense.

Though the courts give great leniency when it comes to a person representing themselves pro se, at some point in time, the defendant has to mount a defense. Howell has not, though from what I can see, the court has bent over backwards to help this person stop shooting himself in the foot. The RIAA is only required to provide proof of their complaint, not provide the defense for Howell.

The danger with something like this, and this is the second time this has happened, is the person representing themselves pro se introduces broad arguments that force courts into asking questions: were these unauthorized copies. Yes, it was Howell that introduced this question, not the RIAA.

At that point, it's been the RIAA who has been actually trying to back away from this issue, and focus purely on the distribution angle.

The Washington Post should have read all of these court papers before writing what they did. To misconstrue this as the RIAA going after Howell just because he ripped the music from the CDs was grossly inaccurate.

The RIAA has never gone after anyone other than the fire sharing sites. This case is absolutely no different than any other the organization has brought. There is no increased harassment — just a complete disregard to fact checking.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Kazaa isn't getting the same level of vilification based on this event. What you're saying is that the software put this person at risk of being sued.

In the second to last paragraph, ignore the second “for a minute”.

In the fifth paragraph, it should read “RIAA”, not “IRIAA”.

I am not trying to be a smartass here, but isn't the burden of proof on the plaintiff, not the defendant?

Second, the RIAA's own expert concedes that Kazaa, by default, indexes all files on one's computer and makes them available for sharing without user approval or agreement.

Third, Howell is representing himself — or was — he may have a lawyer now. We all know the adage about self-representation; I won't repeat it here. I'm sure he is doing so because he could not afford a lawyer, which is what the RIAA hopes for. Therefore, he has a limited knowledge of the law, procedure, and how to approach something like this. Like most of these defendants, settlement is their only option simply because they cannot afford to pay for litigation.

A read through documents where a lawyer IS involved shows how difficult it is for defendants to even obtain the Media Sentry reports or any of the other documents obtained by the RIAA. See this case for an example: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2...

With regard to your question about what my iTunes library has to do with this case, here is the answer: If I believe today that I am not breaking the law, but the IRIAA arbitrarily decides that ripping CDs and making them available to my family for sharing is now unauthorized distribution, I and many others will now be subject to the kind of harassment and extortion tactics that Howell and Lindor and others are now victimized by. This is my point: The RIAA is BROADENING their definition of unauthorized duplication. This places people who believed (even under the guidelines published on the RIAA website) they were acting in accordance with their purchased license at risk.

Back to your first comment for a minute, since I didn't address all your points there for a minute. First, you are quoting from an RIAA document written by RIAA attorneys without seeing the deposition itself. DID he admit the files were placed in a Kazaa folder? Or, along the lines of the expert's testimony regarding Kazaa efaults in the Lindor case, did he install Kazaa and unwittingly place everything in his “My Documents” folder at risk, including all personal correspondence, photos, and other files (like financial data, for example)? (As an aside, there was no evidence that Kazaa had ever been installed on the Lindor computer, yet the RIAA is asserting that Mrs. Lindor did share files via Kazaa, based on MediaSentry reports.)

If you want to argue that Howell had a fool for a client the day he hired himself to represent his cause against the RIAA, I will agree with you. But I'm unwilling to take the unanswered assertions of the RIAA attorneys as fact without actually seeing the evidence they based those assertions on.

Evidently the RIAA isn’t familiar with Kazaa’s unique and not-so-unique evils.

Oh, I think they are and they know what they are doing.

The burden of proof was then on Howell to bring in a forensic expert to stipulate that malware moved his music tunes to Kazaa. He didn't and couldn't prove it. The court systems work on proof not hypothesis or assertions of confusion or reference to some unknown and nefarious entity.

This is the law. This is the way law works.

If there was forensic proof that a malware program moved his music files to the kazaa directory, Howell should have provided this. He did not. If there is proof that Media Sentry is typically in error, he should have provided proof. He didn't. All he did was testify that some unknown person or software moved his files to the kazaa directory. His argument, sans proof or expert testimony, was invalid in the eyes of the court.

This is the law.

I didn't once say he was or was not saying the truth. I said this is the way the law works.

Tell me: what should have the courts done differently?

“My iTunes library is shared with my kids. RIAA says (today) that iTunes is a permitted music download site but will they turn around and say the ability for me to share files has somehow caused me to violate the copyright?”

Tell me: is this related to this incident? Is this related in any way to this particular incident?