By Joel Tenenbaum

To a certain extent, I'm afraid to write this. Though they've already seized my computer and copied my hard drive, I have no guarantee they won't do it again. For the past four years, they've been threatening me, making demands for trial, deposing my parents, sisters, friends, and myself twice � the first time for nine hours, the second for seven. I face up to $4.5m in fines and the last case like mine that went to trial had a jury verdict of $1.92m.

When I contemplate this, I have to remind myself what I'm being charged with. Investment fraud? Robbing a casino? A cyber-attack against the federal government? No. I shared music. And refused to cave.

No matter how many people I explain this to, the reaction is always the same: dumbfounded surprise and visceral indignance, both of which are a result of the amazing secrecy the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has operated under. "How did they get you?" I'm asked. I explain that there are 40,000 people like me, being sued for the same thing, and we were picked from a pool of millions who shared music. And that's when a look appears on the face of whoever I'm talking to, the horrified "it could have been me!" look.

Complete Story

It couldn't have been me. I don't use peer-to-peer services. I agree the amount is absurd. But it is also kind of careless, given that the lawsuits have been no secret.

BTW, I thought the RIAA was stopping the lawsuits. More lies, I guess. Situation normal...

" t couldn't have been me. I don't use peer-to-peer services. "

That makes no difference.
Identification by IP address isn't accurate enough to stand the tes of a criminal trial.

Proof is in the fact of the many people they have
sued that don't have computers, and the
network printer they sued.

If they sue you, and you never used p2p software,
just having music files on your PC is proof of
guilt in they eyes of Judge Davis, and the Jury.

Yup, it still could be you, and you would never
be able to prove your innocence.

Even though this has not happened to me, I can certainly sympathize. And if it was me, I would like to think that I would stand firm with not one, but two big "your number ones " pointed right at them, with a shit eating grin on my face.

Yeah, I know, it's easy to say that when the barrel is not pointed at me, I just know how I normally react to bullshit fascism, and this is no different, really.

I doubt I would even get a lawyer. Just tell everyone there to suck cock, and try to get $2 mill out of me. And laugh manically while it's done.

They do have the option of garnishing wages, put you in jail, blah fucking blah, but standing up for yourself says a lot, even in the face of that.

"Identification by IP address isn't accurate enough to stand the test of a criminal trial."

Yeah, but this isn't a criminal trial.

The RIAA should have to prove:
(a) dissemination of copies
(b) to the public
(c) by sale, other transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending. See 17 USC 106(3).

This is, of course, impossible.

MediaSentry downloaded one single copy of seven different songs. I don't know if that even meets the standard of "copies," but no one, including defense attorney Charles Nesson so far, seems to have even mentioned parts (b) and (c), much less attempted to make a jury understand that the RIAA has to prove all three points.

The RIAA has sent so much BS to the mass media, and so many people have drank it like kool-aid to the point where they were asking for seconds....

As much as I don't like to say it, I don't see the RIAA going down like so many of us predicted it will. So long as people continue to buy the BS they force on us, nothing will change.

I don't agree with the law suits, but a lot of these people did not share just 30 songs. I don't know what the RIAA will do, but it seems a bit ridiculous to hire attorneys to come after you for that little sharing.
I am guessing this guy like the previous had thousands, or hundreds at least, and got caught. This has dragged on for four (4) years. I am not saying that this is right, Tennebaum makes a great point, this moron judge is ruining his life for sharing mp3's, but on the otherside, trial is always a gamble. He should of settled. I dont agree with the RIAA, but he did admit to file sharing, just based on that he should of settled a long time ago.

That the RIAA is a worthless shithole that should of been ended years ago, we can all agree with that I am sure. Still that is no reason to fight this and drag this on, if you know that what you did constituted to file sharing, and you admit to it even.

I feel sorry for him, the RIAA is quite abusive, and I hope he can still work something out with the music industry for a lot, lot less, however; I still say he should of settled years ago.

Yep. He shouldn't have even fought in the first place. He was clearly in the wrong, and although he's standing up for it now, he's on the losing end as far as finances goes.

In other words, he's so fucked its not even funny.