although in the UK he best hope that porn didn't look like a person involved may of been at risk of anything bad... He'd go from a fine to a 3 year jail sentance + sex offenders register.

Noticed that porn 'came' to the rescue here....although I wouldn't get too 'excited' since the RIAA are in everyone's pocket who has influence.

Although, if it was a little too kinky, in the UK at least they could still be screwed by the criminal law.

The RIAA could produce logs showing that they had in fact downloaded copyrighted files from someone's computer. Not sure how far that would get them, since they already own the music. Also a bit like suing someone for letting you steal things from them.

I though the RIAA would have to have some kind of evidence to take these cases to court.

I do not understand how a printoff of a list of files and ip addresses proves someone is guilty? Look how many times the RIAA has got it wrong ..... their piece of paper has an ip address and a filename on it, yet somehow they end up trying to drag unborn children, dead grandma's and Armish people with no electricity to court claiming that they have proof.

I could write down the ip address of the register's webserver, write the name of one of my software packages next to it, stick a time and date on it and then try and sue the register saying I have proof that they have been illegally distributing my software to thousands of people.

I am glad that one judge has enough sense to realise that the RIAA have not actually produced any proof that anything has been distributed.

Even if the RIAA did download files from the defendant, how on earth could they prove that they did actually come from the defendant other than by carrying out a forensic examination of the defendants computer

Make books (covered by copyright!) available. Most have a copy machine (usually for huge amounts per page) as well. Combine the two and...

So, we close all the libraries. Wonderful thought! Next we burn books, I assume?

@Jason Harvey

"I thought people were innocent until proven guilty"

You're thinking of a criminal case. In a civil case, there just has to be a "preponderance of evidence". The plaintiff doesn't need to prove guilt, just show that it's likely the defendant is guilty. It's up to the defendant to prove they're innocent by refuting the evidence.

That's why "making available" is critical. Without that, there is no evidence that the defendants distributed the files to anyone.

@Kanhef

"The RIAA could produce logs showing that they had in fact downloaded copyrighted files from someone's computer"

That's exactly what they are doing via MediaSentry. The EFF argues that since MediaSentry is an authorized agent of the RIAA, the downloads don't count, that there is no proof that *others* have downloaded the music. Hence the "making available" argument.

assuming the RIAA are right in the "making available" argument, the proof would be that they were, er, making the files available :P This is trivial to check in any current popular P2P system. Fortunately it would appear there argument is flawed :)

@Stu Reeves

"So can I be prosecuted if I throw an old cd in the Bin? After all anyone could get it and copy it."

There's a difference between getting prosecuted and being sued by the RIAA. The RIAA can't have you arrested for throwing out the CD, but they could sue you. Anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason. Of course, it would probably be dismissed, but you never know. Especially if it's a promotional CD, the studios claim those are still their property and throwing it out constitutes "illegal distribution".

How sad for the RIAA, being upset in their destruction of people's privacy. I wish these scrotes all the misery their coked-up lives CAN'T handle for ILLEGALLY ruining my computer and many others searching for downloads. It seems due process only counts if THEY do it to you.

Strikes me as more like watching a DVD and leaving the curtains and windows open so that any passerby could watch and listen as well. And if they have their own camcorder!

But I thought some of these stuff is so insecure that it would be like leaving the DVD player too close to the window and having some toerag sticking his own DVD in it for his mates to watch while you are out shopping.

Given that the defendants' defence is that they weren't trying to distribute music, just some home-made p0rn, might it not have been better just to pay the fine?!

Only if you're afraid of puritans attacking you.