Exactly, that’s why they’re guaranteed to win, of course. They’ve got Obama in their pocket and have all their top cronies at the top of the government. They’ll apply every dirty and corrupt trick in the book to win this – they’ll pay enough money to the right people to guarantee a win. You mark my words.

They can’t fail.

That’s probably why they’re doing everything they can to beat Jammie to the ground.
She represents a much bigger picture these thugs don’t want the courts to recognize.
…And she’s basically doing this ALONE.

They know if they lose, there will be a avalanche of new challenges that will make the courts examine the need for new precedents in the laws themselves. As it stands, it “looks” better when they’re suing one woman out of existence, than it would if half of the file-sharing community were up for the same damages.

If I was them I would prefer to lose but I guess I have a brain;
They don’t. They carry a big piece of nasty lead instead.

You can post it on internet via Tor. They will be never able to catch you!

PLEASE!

” Evidence #6 “Screenshots of defendants shared folder”

Hahahahahahahahahaha

How do they manage to screw these things up that badly. This is clearly a screenshot of the plaintiffs/MS computer after searching on the username that is in theory linked to defendant. It is most defiantly *NOT* a screenshot of the defendant’s computer’s shared folder.

Either the evidence should be thrown out and rule 11 sanctions applied … or.. the defendant should use them to their advantage. I think the jury might be interested in the status bar text “Not sharing any files”

Oops ”

Pay particular notice to the reference of the status bar text.

NOT sharing any files.

So, what exactly is she guilty of then ?

They are not suing her for downloading, they stopped that a while ago because that strategy was flawed,
so they are saying she was ‘Distributing copyrighted files’.
How is this done when the evidence clearly shows she was NOT sharing ?

here is the link to the post on rays blog, with the links to the referenced ‘evidence’

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/06/riaa-makes-numerous-in-limine-motions.html

That’s not true in all cases, and that’s part of the problem.
Many of those extorted didn’t engage in any file sharing whatsoever.

The granny with no computer ?
The dead person ?
The printer ?

I am glad you are trying to look at this objectively, but it would be more productive if everyone stopped assuming
that all of those sued actually engaged in any filesharing activity.

Those that settled, even though they did nothing, did so out of fear of exactly what is being done to Jammie.

The playing field is ridiculously uneven, so the completely innocent as well as those that do use one of
the targeted p2p clients are equally victimized.

@RW what land of fantasy do you come from?

As much as several “clueless people” have tried to propagate a lie to try to extort money from their customers with half-truths and outright swindles (DRM, saying the tracks shared is directly linked to loss of CD sales).

What is absurd about his whole case, is that it is based on semi-legal tactics by companies like Mediacentry and RIAA lawyers who try to gain personal information and cash by threats of litigation. I still can not fathom how thick you would need to be (as a judge) to not take the RIAA and MPAA for what they really are: racketeering thugs.

So please feel free to waddle back to your fantasy land, where the evil Wizard reigns over the lowly public, and anyone who speaks against him is ratted out and turned into stone.

Just my two cents

-Charlie

-Charlie