Oh shit, the RIAA is at it again.

[Fast1one 10+ year member]

I see what you are saying, however this is not the main arguement. Yes they were in the same folder, but no he was not sharing the files. That was his defense, which is why it would seem the words are twisted to make the RIAA look worse. When really, if thats what happened, it should make them look worse, cuz it would make them guilty of exalty what that first article implies.

IDK, look here:http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/
We don't really know until we see concrete documents, I have been searching to no avail...

Edit: Heres a much more reliable source, though it is a bit old so its most likely a different case, but I have no idea when the case opened so you never know...

http://www.theiplawblog.com/archives/-copyright-law-making-available-is-copyright-infringement-in-file-sharing-case.html

Edit Edit: After reading it I think the latter link is an older case, but it raises the question: Why the hell do people still use Kaaza???? My goodness it seems they are the only ones getting caught....I don't even use limewire anymore, just not worth it...

 

[Liquid Bass 10+ year member]

well if they tangled with microsoft or apple they would get *****. those companys are untouchable, and what about the cell phone companys letting ppl downlaod music to their phones? can you say RIAA vs AT&T lol that would be pwnage.

 

[Fast1one 10+ year member]

"It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. Exhibit B to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is a series of screen shots showing the sound recording and other files found in the KaZaA shared folder on Defendant’s computer on January 30, 2006...Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the “.mp3” format. ...Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use...The .mp3 format is a “compressed format [that] allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol.” Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011. Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder." Sup. Br. p. 15

I believe thats the main argument...
Also, Found this link: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/01/index-of-litigation-documents.html#Atlantic_v_Howell

 

[Audio Junkies 10+ year member]

When I put something up on AJ a few weeks ago about this, this was my source...

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/12/riaa-files-supplemental-brief-in.html

Edit: Fast1one beat me to it.