To the court she is only guilty of sharing 24 songs until plaintiffs can prove otherwise. And I don’t think the judge will issue a special injunction for only 24 songs.

Not to mention the fact that the statement:

‘is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, will continue to cause Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money,’

IMO is a very dangerous rode to go down for the RIAA. They’re basically saying that they cannot prove harm by the defendant, and without harm their entire lawsuit may: 1) be rendered entirely frivolous, or 2) may limit or eliminate the punitive damages (reducing a $1.92 million judgment to a mere $24.00).

If the judge takes the RIAA’s word of harm without proof then its going to be thrown out on appeal and may even be cause for yet another trial. If the judge requests proof of harm and the RIAA cannot provide it, then its going to make them look really bad and will only strengthen the defense’s appeal and may have the damage award drastically reduced.

File-sharing is here to stay, and the system of intellectual property has been rendered defunct by technology.

Time to abolish absentee ownership!