Judge Rules Shared Files Folder Not Enough 156
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In UMG v. Lindor, Judge David G. Trager rejected Ms. Lindor's objection to a Magistrate's Report, in which Ms. Lindor complained that the Report could be read to imply that 'the mere presence of a shared files folder on an individual's computer would ... satisfy the requirements of 17 USC 106(3)', saying that the Report of Magistrate Robert M. Levy could not be so read, since '[t]he report and recommendation does not comment on whether or not the mere presence of a shared files folder satisfies 17 USC 106(3). Instead, it makes clear that plaintiffs will have the burden of proving actual sharing. [Report and Recommendation, at 5] ('At trial, plaintiffs will have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant did indeed infringe plaintiff's copyrights by convincing the fact-finder, based on the evidence plaintiffs have gathered, that defendant actually shared sound files belonging to plaintiffs.') (emphasis added)'"
Re:Could it be! An intelligent Judge! (Score:4, Funny)
Well, not really, but you never know...
Re:Shared Folders do not equal P2P (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Who said the case law has to make sense? (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know what case two illustrates. I assume the 'I' in it is the RIAA, the 'you' is the consumer, and the 'car' is music, but I'm not sure where the bank robbery or theft comes in. I'm thinking this just goes into the 'bad vehicular metaphor' category.
Re:I'm so confused (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmm... perhaps I should make a new name "TerribleAnalogyGuy"
Re:Oohhhhkay then (Score:3, Funny)