P2P Defendant Destroys Evidence, Case Defaults

neoflexycurrent writes "A court in Texas has thrown the book at a defendant accused by the RIAA of file sharing. The court determined that she had intentionally wiped her hard drive clean, so it entered the most severe sanction possible — default judgment against her. The record companies now just have to ask the court how much they want in damages."

Comments

Destroying the data stopped sharing!

[noidentity]

[...] the Western District of Texas has shown little mercy on a defendant accused by record companies of illegal file-sharing. Knowing that a court order was in place requiring her to turn over her hard drive to be copied, the defendant allegedly used "wiping" software [...]

Bah, the judge is just miffed that he didn't get a copy of all her music. She did the right thing by putting an immediate stop to such blatant file-sharing, by the courts even!

</sarcasm>

Given that the record companies' expert opined that the defendant had downloaded over 200 sound recordings during 2005,

Eh? Since when is the recipient of an unauthorized copy guilty of copyright infringement? I though it was just the provider of the unauthorized copy.

So, if someone...

[CrazyDuke]

...has a porn collection, gets their hard drive subpoenaed, had a file sharing client installed at somepoint on the PC, and deletes the pron because they feel they don't want their fetishes being a part of the public record; they are guilty by default?