Mobile/PDA About Us Advertise here


		User name	Password

		Not registered yet? Register here. Lost your password? Click here.

Browse by topic

News

RIAA close to victory over Jeffrey Howell

27 August 2008 13:50 by Andre "DVDBack23" Yoskowitz | 9 comments

Federal Judge Neil V. Wake is set to reverse a previous decision that had ruled against the RIAA in the case of defendant Jeffrey Howell. Howell's case has been at the center of the "making available" point.

The case took a turn for the worse when the RIAA claimed that Howell had taken steps to remove all evidence of Kazaa from his computer despite "repeated and explicit warnings about the obligation to preserve evidence."

In April, the same judge ruled in favor of Howell, stating that the labels "hadn't provided adequate evidence that Howell had infringed their copyrights." Wake added that although the RIAA claimed Howell had 42 songs in his Kazaa shared folder, Judge Wake said that it could not be proven as infringement unless there was proof that someone actually downloaded the shared files. The key point however, was whether Howell had actually purposely shared the files or whether Kazaa had put them there automatically.

Because he erased the hard drive however against the judge's orders, it appears that the RIAA may win this case after all and Howell will not get a chance to argue the "making available" point. Unfortunately.

Permalink to this article | Topic: Lawsuits & Legislation

RIAA fights to keep laywers off-camera in P2P case (19 January 2009)

RIAA suit against MP3tunes' CEO gets dismissed (5 October 2008)

Jammie Thomas gets new trial against RIAA (25 September 2008)

RIAA to sue Ray Beckerman (18 September 2008)

JK Rowling wins Harry Potter copyright case (11 September 2008)

File sharing propaganda distributed to students (26 August 2008)

German file-sharers now have less to worry about (15 August 2008)

RIAA pays $108,000 in lawyer fees, sets precedent (15 August 2008)

Ray Beckerman urges defense lawyers to go after MediaSentry (13 August 2008)

Judge lowers fines for suspected file sharer (12 August 2008)

Judge limits RIAA damage award for "Innocent Infringement" (11 August 2008)

« Previous news article
Philips shows off 3D on Blu-ray

Next news article »
Epson unleashes new combo projector

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 27 August 2008 15:54
Meh make it a mistrial and charge both court time. [ + quote]
ThePastor (Junior Member) 27 August 2008 16:29
Guilty of contempt, I can see. Guilty of sharing files? How? There is still no evidence. [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 27 August 2008 16:32
*Originally posted by ThePastor:* Guilty of contempt, I can see. Guilty of sharing files? How? There is still no evidence. didn't say fines just court costs of the court. have both sides pay for the courts wasteing their time. [ + quote]
tin23uk (Junior Member) 27 August 2008 17:20
deleting data from a hard drive doesnt create any evidence but it is going against a judges legal requests, so like the pastor said the only thing this guy should be charged with is contempt of court [ + quote]
windsong (Junior Member) 27 August 2008 19:40
He should have encrypted the drive before the RIAA contacted him. Due to laws against self-incrimination, the judge would not have been able to force the password from him. Drivecrypt (bootauth) and PGP would have saved his hide. [ + quote]
DXR88 (Senior Member) 27 August 2008 21:33
Awe thats a dame shame, ow wait thats right when you delete stuff it never really is deleted, just flagged for right over current data. this just shows that the pig money hungry RIAA can't even hire a proper HDD Analyzer. i bet i could restore every thing in his kaza folder right now. it also goes to prove that in digital life, the judge doesn't know his shit. maybe he never deleted any thing maybe the RIAA took his computer and tossed it around, damaging the HDD or maybe his computer Had a V-Bomb. we all know the RIAA are honest hard working people, but maybe the RIAA deleted those files, they knew there where 42 files in the kaza folder which they attained by illegal snooping in the first place. Sorry Jeff looks like they bought of your judge better luck next time, right chap [ + quote]
borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 30 August 2008 18:06
*Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* Meh make it a mistrial and charge both court time. I would have to agree with this statment i even felt that it was a waste of my time reading this update :P If this guy is soo silly to erase his drive and think its all over i do not think so :P [ + quote]
max777 (Junior Member) 26 September 2008 20:15
So because Jeff is claiming he never had Kazaa or the files on his computer, he can't say he made them available but no one downloaded them. So what I gotta say is -- what a dumb jury to convict based solely on the word of the RIAA???? Maybe the defense needs to show what lairs and thieves the RIAA is. [ + quote]
1bonehead (Senior Member) 27 September 2008 3:58
The defendant is a dummy ! The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI. The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI. The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above! The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX. [ + quote]