Avid readers of RIAA lawsuits will realize that at least in Canada, the judge ruled that 'sharing files' did not constitute an illegal act. Unfortunately, this precedent was not established on American soil (the idea will be put to the test in the pending Barker case), so this current case (SONY v. DeMaria) must address that issue.
Given that there is much legal reading to understand, it is best to point out what is at stake. The defendant requires the RIAA to actually name the person it desires to accuse, and to also name someone who downloaded something from the defendant. It basically asks the RIAA to produce the proof it is supposed to have as the plaintiff, or otherwise risk a summary judgment (more or less asking for a decision where the plaintiff cannot produce evidence supporting the claim). The other idea brought up is the “doctrine of unclean hands,” which boils down to the plaintiff acting unethically in order to win the case (what the RIAA tries habitually in its legal ‘proceedings’ at least). If the RIAA knows this person committed a crime, why not produce the evidence to support its claim?
It will be interesting to see how this Sony v DeMaria case goes, in how it might define if only having a shared folder on one’s computer constitutes some form of piracy. Perhaps it will be answered the same way Konrad von Finckenstein ruled upon it.
