Judge sides with RIAA: file-sharing apps lead to direct infringement

The article:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070827-judge-sides-with-riaa-file-sharing-apps-lead-to-direct-infringement.html

This article discusses a recent decision made by a judge regarding a file sharing case. In the case, the defendants (Pamela and Jeffrey Howell), who had been sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement, decided to defend their case by claiming that they had set up their file-sharing programming for private use. The judge, Judge Neil V. Wake, dismissed this argument and sided with the RIAA. He claimed that just having the file-sharing program installed was enough for a conviction, citing previous cases where this was the case. The article then goes into how the RIAA took this ruling to judges in other cases to try to win them. There is an attorney who on the defense for the other cases, and the article talks about him and how he disagrees with the judge. It finishes up with a report on the cases made by the RIAA.

This is another instance where the recording industry sues based on the fact that the defendant has the file-sharing application installed. The judge bases his decision on previous instances where the file-sharing software was used to obtain copyrighted material, and that merely having the application and making material available is sufficient for litigation. This should not be. In the case of file-sharing, not all users use the application for copyright violating uses. The RIAA obviously knows this, since they "lost no time" in taking the decision to other judges. The court should have been able to examine the computer setup Howell's to see whether or not they had been infringing on copyright. Instead, they assumed from other users who had used the software for copyright violation. I agree with Beckerman, the attorney who disagrees with the judge, in his arguments. I don't think that "making available" should be enough to violate copyright.