Mon Sep 1, 2008 2:15PM EDT
See Comments (6)
Score one more for the RIAA. In the case against Arizona resident Jeffrey Howell, a judge has ruled for the music organization, granting them slightly more than $40,000 in damages for Howell's infringement of 42 songs, which he allegedly shared on the Kazaa file sharing network.
This case is an extremely strange one, and Howell had an even weaker defense than the other plaintiff who lost against against the RIAA, Jammie Thomas. In her case, Thomas presented only weak defenses that the infrigement could have been due to someone else (and the RIAA had strong evidence that that was not the case), but Howell actually went out of his way to look guilty: After being ordered to preserve the evidence, Howell uninstalled Kazaa, wiped his logs, then reformatted his hard drive and wiped it with a nuking program. When it came time for trial, there was no evidence left, which the judge must not have been too pleased about.
Howell also chose to defend himself in the lawsuit, saying he was unable to afford an attorney to represent him. (In a civil trial like this, the court doesn't appoint counsel.) The EFF notes in the linked story that the verdict might have been different had Howell been able to present evidence on his behalf (and, you know, not erased all the evidence).
The judge ended the case early last week and declared summary judgment against Howell. The punishment was announced today. Interestingly, Howell also gets to pay the judgment off over time, at a 2.12 percent interest rate.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
I think at this point the RIAA is accomplishing what they were set to do, prevent anyone from downloading free songs through fear. If you do, be prepared to pay $1000 per song. Buying them for $1 doesn't sound so bad compared to the alternative.
@michael_swaney Are you joking? First of all if you steal something, you do not just get to essentially pay the cost of what you stole which is what you are suggesting with the "36.96 plus tax". Secondly he distributed it so the damage would be multiplied. So if a song is 99 cents and over 40000 people downloaded it then 49k would be justified.
Why wasn't Kazaa fined instead?
Michael_swaney? Are you mad? Did you expect us all to take your side automatically, cuz we're the little guys? Buy your music clown!
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Posted by michael_swaney on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:18PM EDT Report Abuse
once again the RIAA goes after the little guy. I don't believe that the 42 songs was worth 40,000.00. why does the courts set such high judgement when you could easliy buy a song from walmart.com for .88. so all he should have to pay is $ 36.96 +tax. one computer=$600.00 Kazaa donwload =free Being sued by the RIAA = your first born child