AfterDawn: Tech news

Federal court throws the book at file swapper

Written by Dave Horvath @ 25 Aug 2006 10:03 User comments (93)

Federal court throws the book at file swapper US Federal District Court had been trying to go forth with a case of Arista Records v. Tschirhart, which brought up charges of illegal file sharing of songs owned by Arista. In a recent development, the user Tschirhart, knowing she would have had to hand over her hard drive for evidence, used a "wiping" software on the hard drive to clear any incriminating evidence off.
In response, Arista filed a pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) which basically states that the courts allow the strictest of punishment allowable by law due to the desctruction of evidence. The courts, in turn, approved the plaintiff's request if they can come up with a summary of damages within 30 days.

Arista claims that there were allegedly 200+ songs from their label on her hard drive and is set to pursue recovery of up to $150,000 per infringement.

By pushing the case into default, coupled with the fact that the defendant herself destroyed the evidence vital to the case, the judge awarded the ability to pursue the maximum damage reimbursement possible and felt that lesser punishment was not warranted.

In an unfortunate turn, it appears that the courts and Arista records are setting out to make an example out of one lowly file sharer.

Source:
InternetCases.com

Previous Next  

93 user comments

125.8.2006 10:16

out of control...its getting ridiculous.

225.8.2006 10:31

So, they have no evidence any more and still they are sending her down?!? In any other case weather it be murder or something they would have to drop it! This is crazy!!!

325.8.2006 11:11

Quote:
In any other case weather it be murder or something they would have to drop it!
Do you really think it they found a melted-down gun (distruction of evidence) they would drop the case?

425.8.2006 11:32

All they are doing is losing money. At least the dvd industry is trying to do the right thing. All the music industry's doing is creating more dissent. All they have to do is lower the price of downloadable music.

525.8.2006 12:15

150000 per song! PFFF, Ya right. These copyright infrigement laws have the stench of lobbyism written all over them and corrupt politicians not far from the mix. If anything, you would seek damages relative to what the cd's being sold for are worth. This is disproportionate, and without evidence on her hard drive, all they can do is empty threats. When you get good lawyers in the mix, things complicate.

625.8.2006 12:37

wow talk about f'ckd up. She turned over the hard drive, did it say that it could not be wiped? She did hand over the physical evidence that they wanted. They'll never ever see that money from her. Just that simple.

725.8.2006 12:58

i bet she only makes like ten dollars an hour how do they expect someone to pay for all that, when a cd takes like ten cents to make, and oh lord 20 dollars max to sell; thank god i never did that, its scary; i always tell my friends and family be careful they are snagging everyone

825.8.2006 14:32

So lets see...200 songs at $150K each= $30 MILLION???!!! What the $*!! is wrong with these people???!!! And yet, at the same time, driving DRUNK and possiblly KILLING someone on the road will get you a DUI, a small fine, and maybe 30 days in jail. Oh wait, AND a slap on the wrist. I've watched World's Wildest Police Videos many times before, I remember on guy had SIXTEEN DUI charges. SIXTEEN!!!! How many does it take before HE has to pay $30 million??????!!! And these a**holes want 30 MILLION DOLLARS for MUSIC. MUSIC!!!! What has this world come to???!!! /rant

925.8.2006 14:33

So, if I own and use a paper shredder for sensitive documents or what-not around the house, does that put me on the same grounds if some cop busted in under a warrant and accused me of destroying evidence because there's shredded paper in the trash can next to my paper shredder? That doesn't seem right. Seriously, who comes up with this stuff?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Aug 2006 @ 16:02

1025.8.2006 14:35

(sorry, dbl post) ...what happened to the edit button?

1125.8.2006 14:40

limelight its never about how many are mamed and killed its about effecting the ability of the rich to get richer.....

1325.8.2006 15:04

Lethal_B *pokepoke* you guys need to update the news comments to be more like the normal forums :P


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

1425.8.2006 15:18

Again they go for the single user instead of fighting the root of the problem they always goo after the little fish. To play devils advocate here. They should go after the coperations that allow this or even the isp providers and make it manditory for them to turn off all file sharing capabilities. But you see isp's won't do that cause most of them have like download uplad limits already and thats how they make $$$ soo for sure they want to keep things as they are as long as they don't get fried they don't care.

1525.8.2006 16:00

@Lethal Ooooooh... Guess I'm a lil' late. :P Thanks.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Aug 2006 @ 16:01

1625.8.2006 16:22

borhan9 pretty much if ISP A and B start haveing mega CAPs and becuse incabailte with torents and such ISP A and B will go the way of the do-do....


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

1725.8.2006 17:51

question: What proof does Arista have that she had 200+ songs on her hard drive? Yes, they can assume, but they need corroborative proof that at one time, she had in her possession 200+ hard drives ON THAT HARD DRIVE. There needs to be a full list of the songs. Not just a number that they think she had.

1825.8.2006 19:50

By convicting her of destroying evidence without the Corpus delicti (proof that Tschirhart actually had the songs on her HD) then the court is asking her to incriminate herself. Doesn't the 5th amendment guarantee you can't do this? Why not convict her of destruction of evidence? Bush really has brought about 1984, only much much worse.

1925.8.2006 20:07

ummmm... Bush is in charge of MPAA?? Oh, that's right. I saw him at the court house just the other day beating an 90-year old granma for sharing the Oak Ridge Boys album.

2025.8.2006 21:08

capt2278 I think what he means is Buch and co. have been winteling down the laws that protect us for years,altho I cant seem to think of any for this issue *L*

2125.8.2006 21:27
aabbccdd
Inactive

....

2225.8.2006 22:10
duckNrun
Inactive

I think the reasoning goes that if she had no evidence to hide then why shred her drive? This was the same logic used to convict some guy of child porn not because he had any traces of child porn on his system but because he had a file encrypter. The logic there was why encrypt stuff if you don't have anything to hide. Yes, child porn is bad... convicting with no evidence is bad too! Convicting with no evidence except by saying that one cannot insure one's privacy via encryption without said privacy measures being evidence of guilt is pretty bad as well! I know I know.. these aren't MY rulings or logic so don't yell at me! I believe that perhaps the wiser choice would be (in the situation of wiping your drive under these circumstances)to insure that you didn't hand over a wiped drive but a dirve with plenty of old files recoverable through undelete and forensics. Perhaps have a nice nasty cluttered image to put back on the drive with a bunch of old file dates and whatnot. That way when the drive is inspected they retrieve a bunch of old deleted stuff but nothing that was there when it was wiped. Of course this above discussion is in no way encouraging people to destroy evidence or to violate any laws whatsoever. It's simply for academic and informative debate purposes only. :-)

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Aug 2006 @ 22:13

2325.8.2006 23:34

duckNrun I agree with you 150% nothing like throwing a person in jail to be raped and "harmed" for the reason that they dont have hard evidance agisnt them >< they shuld pay fines and mabye get a month locked up but hard time and other shit? thats bullhocky... I have a collection I like my collection its simmliar to thos that mainless tape stuff off TV jsut..msotly....japanease TV...but I disgress.....I love my colelction *cuddles* anyway...what was I saying >< I am insane mabye? :P I dont like 85% of what the US makes games and TV and moives and have to SEE it befor puting in 20 or more bucks into it,I do it with games to but I wind up gettign them when they are on sell *L* I buy used and frankly that has not let me down like spending 50 on qauke 4 only to find it is light corridoor version of D3(there is a pun in there)....you know theres a way for them to start gettign people to not share files mabye start reduceign the price alttiel and mabye make a deal with the retailers to take back games when people say they suck..so the poeple can feel like they have not been riped off....... god can you say drunken rant >< sorry been sick and the bendryll has me all fkced up *L*

2425.8.2006 23:38

No way, look they have to have corroborating evidence to even bring this case against her. What i mean is that somehow they knew she had the songs on her hard drive initially and they will probably show this in court but it will be purely circumstantial now since their physical evidence(the hard drive) was wiped. So unless they have other evidence to show the songs in question they go after her for the destruction of evidence charge along with her initial charges. What i don't get tho is if they knew they were gonna nail her, i don't know why they didn't file for a warrant to get the hard drive or computer upfront.

2525.8.2006 23:52
johnodd4
Inactive

ok first by law they cannot do this because BY LAW you have to prove the songs where infact on that hard drive which they cannot have the courts ever heard of a ip address changer any hacker can change there ip address to mask who they really are duhhh and the jurors on this case will throw this case out because look at the evidence all they have is a ip address which can be faked by any hacker stupid

2626.8.2006 1:40

Not only can ip be spoofed, but also routers which aren't secured, can also be exploited. Secondly, she probably used evidence eliminator, or some type of software that rewrites the data maybe 20 times over. lol Thirdly, the real concern is a screen recorder, but that in effect can also be argued as showing little evidence. Fourthly, self-incrimination, there are laws against that, but I guess it doesn't apply to these corporate criminals. Fifthly, 30 million dollars for 200 songs? Any juror with enough common sense will find that amount exhorbitantly ridiculous. Sixthly, from what I understand, the law isn't allowed making an example out of anyone, the law is the same for all. Finally, the copyright laws applied in this case are not only ridiculous, but what will this person do when that person obviously can't pay that amount? Perhaps throw her in jail X-infinity years! In conclusion, these people are vile, and they sold their souls to greed. Bastards.

2726.8.2006 4:00

man! whats wrong with these ASS heads!?!?! How the hell would someone pay that much money for downloading some songs illegaly? If i were to assault someone, id get a less punishment than filesharing.

2826.8.2006 4:53

antomic thts the point,and thus why the rich stay rich...

2926.8.2006 6:41

there is no way that she will pay, she will appeal and it will keep going on and on and on....

3026.8.2006 9:18

Is it illegal to own the music on media? I have collected/made over 500,000 mp3's but don't share over the net. Can my collection be confiscated? Over the years I have purchased about 2000 cd's to help the RIAA get richer but i'm getting sick of the American legislation and DMCC.

3126.8.2006 11:29

I see two possible solutions to these problems... 1. Use external hard drives which can easily be ditched at any given time leaving very little traces of evidence of anything... 2. Every file sharer should have a black box and there computer. There computer containing nothing but good white collar files, and the other containing you're so called infringing files... Computers are cheap inexpensive purchase a desktop off ebay start using it now for everything legit nothing but files from www.freeware4u.com and purchased softwares or run linux don't use this PC for anything else. It is a pain to back up things at times for some people it just makes more since to download if they own something why have to pay for a download if they already own something?

3226.8.2006 22:21

lol i bet all the pirated songs we all downloaded come from her

3326.8.2006 23:14
theridges
Inactive

i just think they need to quit because it isnt going to stop,just give it up already.....

3426.8.2006 23:27

The simple facts are that the judge in this case made the wrong ruling. I use a file-erasing software at least once a week in order to hide my more sensitive documents. Are they going to come to my home and say "Ooops, you have file-wiping software, you must be guilty of something!" This lady should immediately appeal her case, on the grounds that there is NO evidence that she destroyed any evidence, the simple use of a file-wiping software is NOT evidence of that. If they wanted to go by that, then the simple use of the equivalent programs by the DOD or Pentagon are evidence that they are hiding evidence of illegal acts..... see how you get caught in a loop there. To quote to another person "Child porn isn't bad until some asshole says it is bad!" I frankly work in the lawyer industry as a paralegal, have seen the stuff and most, in fact almost all, of it is NOT very bad. Children enjoying themselves and enjoying sexual acts at most. Time to rewrite the laws to say "Copyrights are no longer enforceable, patents will only be given in VERY slim capacities where you TOTALLY invent a new technology, and all sexual prohbibition laws are illegal and children have the same rights as adults to make their own sexual choices and they just have to LIVE with those choices." The last is called "Teaching responsibility".

3527.8.2006 0:47

i agree with you man. If some girl wants to participate in sexual acts on her own will, WHY NOT (only if she wants to, though)? Thats like telling everyone on AD that you cant drink beer until your 80 years old.




Sam fisher watches you

3627.8.2006 2:10

antomic and on the other side of it you have old guys teach 6-8 eyar old boys to jack off in front of camras...thus why some child porn is bad the "teen" stuff I dont ahve a problem with its the under 12ish that set my mind to worry....becsue that and other child rape on camra is the ture "child porn" the US neds to grow up and adopt a more ralistic view on sexailty past 14 or 16 it should be up to them. england and japan are better examples of how sex is treated. I think 16 is a good age to dump adult hood on,hell by then they have alrady had a job for a year or 2 mabye paying taxes why not let them drink smoke screw and VOTE LOL hell they already do most of it anyway.. note..no I dont ahve issues being a 30 yro virgen >>


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

3727.8.2006 4:41

"BY LAW you have to prove the songs where infact on that hard drive which they cannot have the courts ever heard of a ip address changer any hacker can change there ip address to mask who they really are and the jurors on this case will throw this case out because look at the evidence all they have is a ip address which can be faked by any hacker stupid " Wrong, wrong wrong. What jurors? It is a default judgement. She was alrady served by the courts, to destroy evidence in this case would fairly automatically put ou into the highest damages. destroying evidence once a court has ordered you to turn it overwould put you in this position in any civil case, not just for file sharing. "The simple facts are that the judge in this case made the wrong ruling. I use a file-erasing software at least once a week in order to hide my more sensitive documents. Are they going to come to my home and say "Ooops, you have file-wiping software, you must be guilty of something!"" Again if a court has already ordred you to privide your hard drive and after the order you wipe your drive, you can't say "oops." "By convicting her of destroying evidence without the Corpus delicti (proof that Tschirhart actually had the songs on her HD) then the court is asking her to incriminate herself. Doesn't the 5th amendment guarantee you can't do this? Why not convict her of destruction of evidence? Bush really has brought about 1984, only much much worse." Bush? WTF? Corpus delicti? what? This is a civil case. if yo destroy evidence in a civil case tha is already underway you are going to certainly get hit with the highest amount.

3827.8.2006 4:56

S2K meh soemone brought bush in,as far as I know he might have screwed with other laws but this one is kinda clear 0_o I am still waiting for Bush and compy to declear REAL war,start rigeing in the coperations and protect our debt,contry,laws and shit........I ean he could have brought the contry into a ture war mode and made war time aws this sneaking around the constintusion is BS....my god the US is in debt in the fing TRILLOINs to the world.....bush is fing Nero.....ok ok rant stop sorry ><

3927.8.2006 8:13

ZIppyDSM, Why can't you spell correctly? Please use a spell check for the love of God!! I never post on this site, but I have noticed that you post all the time, and it's like trying to pull teeth each time I try to read your posts!!! Country is not spelled "Contry". It's one thing when you make typos, it's another when you repeatedly make the same spelling mistakes over and over! If you want to post things, make sure you read over it when you are done, so that you know it makes since! I'm sorry, it's just frustrating!

4027.8.2006 8:48

niembre because I forget. :3 and try havening learning disabilities that screw with how your mind process's info 0_o

4127.8.2006 8:50

Besides most studies show most brains completes a word regardless if its spelt right...altho I don't just misspell I MANGLE *L* gaahhh finding the edit buton in a diff thread is annoying......ggrrrr

4227.8.2006 9:53

NO ONE ANSWERED MY QUESTION Is it illegal to own the music on media? I have collected/made over 500,000 mp3's but don't share over the net. Can my collection be confiscated?

4327.8.2006 10:03

unless they are pirated, i just think that the us government are takin this just a tad to far who agrees? maybe they should be spending as much money and time on real cases.

4427.8.2006 13:03
mark5hs
Inactive

couldn't she have just bought all the CDs of the music she downloaded and said they were for backup? because downloading something if you have the legitamite copy is perfectly legal. And $150,000 per song just sounds plain rediculous.

4527.8.2006 13:19

mark5hs the newer law states that any copy made from not what you bought is not leagle.....altho I wodner how the hell will they know 0_o

4628.8.2006 16:11

300million for just 200 songs or so is rediculous.

4728.8.2006 16:23

Perhaps the book being thrown at her, should instead be thrown back at this muse of a judge considering this 30 million dollar penalty!

Hypothetically speaking, if the evidence was still there, what amount of damages would they have requested?

Come to think of it, not even pirate organizations get that much of a harsh penalty!

4829.8.2006 5:49

this drives me insane. My philosophy is: Downloading is stealing music, its like walking into a store and shop lifting 10 cd's. So WTF (why the f***) should she get sued over 300,000+ dollars for stealing some songs, if you were caught shop lifting, would you be arrested and sued for that much money? I HATE THE LAW!!!!

4929.8.2006 14:08
taldy
Inactive

and this is all because of 200+ songs, OMG I'd better get rid of my HD right now........I'll be owing millions and thrown in jail for ever. Although I use AllofMP3, haven't used P2P for a long time, but even AllofMP3 is being sued now isn't it...forgive me I don't keep up with all the forums, blame it on part-time student status!

5029.8.2006 15:18

As of yet there are no charges being brought to anyone who downloads mp3's from p2p or anywhere else,the reason is the RIAA are after only the "UPLOADERS" so download away ,i do :D ,the lady in question was obviously uploading music knowingly or unknowingly ,here in NZ there is a push by the music industry to track down only the uploaders and anyone selling counterfiet cd's.

5129.8.2006 15:29

so your saying if you dont turn on sharing its safer, cause i never did share, not as a kid either.

521.9.2006 10:20

Welcome to the New World Order. I feel sorry for all the americans. DMCA and The PATRIOT Act has turned your once beautiful country where civil rights and liberties were held in the highest regards, Into a 2 bit dictatorship where the rights you have are GIVEN to you piecemeal and the corporations and government rule with an iron fist. This case and all other cases before it are prime examples of corporations getting fatter on the public's back and the government turning a blind eye and condoning such behaviour. Cross your fingers and pray you guys survive till 2008 when it's an election year then vote the bastards out and restore the country to its former greatness. God Bless America (No I'm not american I'm canadian, but my brother lives in New York :-D )

531.9.2006 11:10

XENON pretty much we should went into a streamlined war time,focused on corporate profiteering,havening Iraq and Iran keeping each other busy,properly adjusting the laws to meet new fight against global terrorisms. Instead we sale off government agencies ,go into debt up to our great X5 grandkids "helping Iraq" practicality giving Iran Nukes and sneaking changes to the Law that are unjust and against said law....somehow I see down loaders and copiers being the new terrorists in 20 or 30 years.....*shudders* this is not my USA 0_o

541.9.2006 11:21

Zippy true. In the future it's not who you know but WHAT you know that will decide the grand scheme of things. (oot)I dunno, if i was a leader of a country I wouldn't develop nuclear warheads, Instead I would develop Neutron Bombs (not sci-fi but actual fact) It's clean (no radioactive fallout) It's not as destructive (it doesn't destroy infrastructure, although it may leave it somewhat radioactive due to gamma ray sleeting) But it does kill people (Radiation Poisoning). SO although it's not a WMD per se it could be classified as an act of genocide and a warcrime under the geneva conventions. (/oot)

551.9.2006 11:31

XENON its still a WDM if has a large enough aera and posin = a illict weapon gotta love what the UN will think hoever I think what we realy need are grade A assassins,they or ninjas will get the job done no fuss no muss :3 and remove only the main target and mabye a few of its supports,somehow bombing a contry to the stong age is somehow better than haveing and useing assassins gotta love the way the world thinks....

561.9.2006 11:50

Zippy. yeah military strategy and tactics have kinda tanked in recent years. Example is when the CIA tried to assassinate Fidel Castro with a poisonous cigar! Instead they should've used either an in house assassin (a person from cuba) or used a sniper team to take him out. Instead you have to old goat still alive and kicking. (Instead of murdering him, it looks like time will do the job instead. It seems fate has a sense of irony don't you think? ;-) )

571.9.2006 11:53

XENON pretty much. ^^

581.9.2006 13:11

It is unfortunate they don't prosecute spammers to the same degree. Spamming costs everyone far more than a little file sharing. Record companies make the assumption that every file that is shared would actually be purchased!

591.9.2006 13:22

that would require fighting the world and it might hurt net advertazeing and big buissness..but enslaveign the consumer with the US to the RIAA is ok.

601.9.2006 14:40
Robk9
Inactive

I agree that this was a harsh sentence and I believe she could win an appeal for cruel and unusual punishment. As for the comments about child porn, I have one thing to say, have you lost your mind! That is one of the most craziest and discusting comments I have ever seen posted on this sight! With age comes maturity and sense to make good decisions but I see some people forgot to get in that line.

611.9.2006 17:21

Admin, Could you please suspend ZIppyDSM. His child molestation comments are inappropriate for this forum. Thanks.

621.9.2006 19:38

The punishment they are pursuing is pretty steep. The USA has become one "communistic" country. We will eventually be told what to do daily by the powerful corporations. Arista is going for this money to help pay the executives bonus, salaries, and outrageous stock options. This person (most likely) can not afford to truthfully pay the one infringement penalty.

631.9.2006 20:31

External hard drives are a must.

641.9.2006 23:53

Just to clear something up I heard someone else ask. As far as I know, unless laws have recently changed in the USA, downloading is not illegal, uploading is. Unfortunately, torrent files and most p2p file-sharing these days work by doing the same up and down at one time. I wonder if you could get away with that though, if you never shared the whole file, but only bits and pieces such as through torrents. It's the same as the radio station playing a snippet during one of their advertisements for their station, and wahts coming on that night. just a thought.

652.9.2006 3:52
mitch999
Inactive

to foofdawg, i seem to remember it being legal to play a music clip for a few seconds ( maybe 15) on the radio etc and you don't have to pay royalties, so if this is true maybe torrents should work like that and only download/ upload those segments, in theory that should be legal?

662.9.2006 4:57

Ye but then you'd need to piece the segments together once d/l'ed...

I think if i'm gunna break the law then i'll do it properly - not pussy foot around it lol ;)

Just a though... ;D




672.9.2006 7:07

Simple solution to all of this http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/

682.9.2006 8:02

lol exactly ;)

692.9.2006 17:14
Donuts
Inactive

Teaches us too seek legal advice before before doing ANYTHING.

703.9.2006 1:35

What? Seek legal advice on how to not get caught d/l'ing torrent files which are illegal - ye sure that's the way to go :P lol

713.9.2006 1:44

@Ripper, Man Thanxs for pointing that out it made me laugh :) LOL I couldnt say it better myself.

723.9.2006 2:09
Donuts
Inactive

Ripper, I mean how best to handle the situation once one is caught ;). A lawer would have advised her not to wipe her hard drive and then the damages would not be so big. (Unless she some bad-ass kiddie porn and on it as well and the mp3's were just something on side)

733.9.2006 3:01

@bohran9: Ye couldn't resist! :D lol Ye ok I getcha, as i said, just couldn't resist a poke lol :P

743.9.2006 7:52

I can understand the Artist/Label P.O.V. that their creation is their property and no one else should profit off it. I have no problems with someone getting busted for selling counterfeit CD's. Where I have an issue is with these outrageous fines for sharing. Granted, by sharing a song you might prohibit a potential sale, but following that logic means I should have to pay Black & Decker $200 for lending my neighbor a Power Drill. Killing, Assaulting, Stealing, Vandalizing are crimes, and righfully so. It's getting out of hand however, when it becomes illegal to "share".

753.9.2006 7:55

Quote:
but following that logic means I should have to pay Black & Decker $200 for lending my neighbor a Power Drill.
Good point. I agree. Illegal to share? Maybe everyone at the RIAA mother's didn't teach them to share! lol

763.9.2006 9:04

No their mom's taught them to share but only after telling them to charge anyone an exhorbitant price to share it, have all waivers and forms signed in double triplicate [that's 6 times ;-)] And have a team of lawyers on speed dial so they can sue everyone into chapter 11 even after the contract is honoured!

773.9.2006 9:13

XENON Chapter 11 DENIED,you are not rich or a LARGE corporation...have a nice day!

783.9.2006 9:19

Lawl

793.9.2006 9:32

zippy Take a chill pill My point was they would sue you into bankruptcy. Chapter 11 may deal with corporations or the rich but it DOES deal with bankruptcy. So YOU have a nice day!! :P

803.9.2006 9:41

XENON CHap 13 is normal bankruptcy,where you pay monthly to the court,Chap 7 is a liquidation of assets the court taking what it can from you to pay off your debts. I am unsure about Corporate but their bankruptcy laws have not been altered much its the Normal peoples bankruptcy thats been screwed over... done both........its not a pretty thing....

813.9.2006 9:45

Zippy. Thanks for the clarification. Your tax laws are so voluminous that it would probably choke a T-Rex!

823.9.2006 10:06

I don't do taxes I don't fool with that sht *L* besides they already know how much I get they give it to me *L* Altho I'd rather have a job and do taxes 0_o *L* being able to think all the time is mind numbing >< I am disabled BTW.

833.9.2006 23:57

There is an unsubtle point you are missing here: The penalty is NOT for downloading files (what files?), the penalty is for wiping the disk when she knew she would have to turn it over. This is a procedural ruling that has nothing to do with whether she had copies or they were legal, it is for not following the procedural rules. IOW, how to take a hard situation and make it much worse.

844.9.2006 7:18

porterr thats only half right,they are basing the pently on what she could have had and trumping up the charges because she wiped it.

854.9.2006 12:54

So, if she wiped the hard drive, there is no evidence on it. Surely for destruction of evidence there must be some evidence to start with? If I say you have x on your hard drive, but if you wipe it and you didn't have x on it, then how is that destruction of evidence? Or is this a court requiring an individual to incriminate themselves? It's not like Arista had her hard drive, she broke into their offices and destroyed it... it was HER hard drive.

864.9.2006 18:52

I cant beleive they got away with that

8710.9.2006 9:41

30 Million dollars, is a hefty sum. If I remember exactly, someone got caught distributing in the thousands (article at afterdawn) and got less than that.

I don't get it, isn't the law supposed to be a relative thing?

8810.9.2006 15:06

so, who here as ever heard of anyone being sued for 30 million dollars and jail time for stealing some cd's from a store. I think the punishment should be being forced to buy every song at 2x the price.

891.10.2006 16:32

Why didnt she just go buy a new hard drive the same size as the original. Then reinstall all her data except for the software to download the songs and let them have her computer.

901.10.2006 16:42

If I knew that they were after me I'd get a drill and drill a few holes into the hard drive after I degaussed the thing then they can have it!! ^^ Since they can't prove that ANY song was on the drive. they have no evidence therefore they have no case. (oh wait this is the US where they MAKE UP crap to charge and convict you with! silly me)

915.10.2006 17:10

What would've been good, is for her to stage an accident for her computer, but the type that her hard drive is completely melted. But the forensic people can recover data, so its safer to say, oh! dear me, I believe someone stole my computer. lol.

Computers are the most incriminating things you can have in your household. Especially if you have a 30 million dollar lawsuit pending, and your savings can only match a fraction of the penalty at best... ouf these people are inhumane, how can we allow such flagrant abuse of the law?

925.10.2006 19:14

hot ice

while true that data recovery experts can indeed recover data, it depends on how the drive got to them. If the drive has been physically damaged (ie the platters have been damaged like a drill through each platter) or a strong magnetic field passes through the hard drive,[Being degaussed] then forensics can't recover any of it. I recommend to everyone they get any file shredding software (Evidence Eliminator Being one of the good ones) and use the DOD/NSA Standards to wipe clean your drive a MINIMUM of 7 times [erases it writes 1's and then erases again then writes 0's and repeats the erasure] the more times it's done the less likely any data recovery firm can recover anything but it does take some time. My old drive had all my accounting info and I used the program for 7 straight days and then, as an experiment had my friend who works at a data recovery firm try and recover something. They tried for a month and could not get anything that resembled a file of any type.

Shows ya you can never be too paranoid when it comes to personal security.


The Problem With The Genepool Is That There Are No Lifeguards! ;-)

936.10.2006 6:11

I have learned from Law and Order and CSI if you defrag after a format that will wipe the drive clean.

if a PC is part of a investigation they better take it ASAP because if XP fails jsut right you can do a simple reinstall you have to format it and reinstall....


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive