shared folder

The RIAA seems so positively offended that its "making available" theory keeps getting rejected by courts that it's willing to object to just about anything.

As you probably know, the RIAA's only "win" in a full trial was declared a mistrial, after the judge realized he had made a "manifest error of law" in incorrectly instructing the jury that simply making a file available in a shared folder was the equivalent of "distribution" under copyright law.

The judge then ordered a new trial.

LinuxPlanet: "Once you've set up Windows sharing in Ubuntu, you can start sharing folders. The process is quite similar to what you may have experienced in Windows XP.

To share files you actually share a folder. All the files and any sub-folders within the shared folder are available to others on the network.

Exactly what you or others on the network can do with the shared files (for example, read-only or edit) from another computer is based upon the settings you choose when you share the folder."

Threat Level reports that the MPAA now argues that it has the right to demand up to $150,000 in damages per illegally downloaded file, without having to proof that someone actually downloaded that file.

The lawsuit of Atlantic v. Howell got a ton of attention late last year when some folks, including the Washington Post, misinterpreted an RIAA filing to suggest that the RIAA had claimed that merely ripping your CD to your computer was file sharing.

While the RIAA may actually believe that (and has made other statements to that effect), the filing in this case did not say that at all.