Finally! A judge rules the RIAA must have more than only an allegation of wrongdoing, and now must meet the required 'burden of proof' for any normal plaintiffs in any other court cases! Certainly, Judge David G. Trager should be congratulated as being one of the few judges who has ruled correctly (in UMG v. Lindor).
Sadly, there is also a conflicting ruling of the opposite nature to this, so instead of finally having one established precedent, there will be two to draw on, so while this judge did the right thing, the Electra v. Perez case also exists to further muddy what should be a clear issue--that all plaintiffs regardless of money, rank, stature, notariety, etc.--must meet the burden of proof (a preponderance of the evidence, i.e., at least a 51% likelihood the plaintiff's version is more believable than the defendant's) to even have a case under United States jurisprudence. It would be nice to see the proper ruling/precedent followed, but all will have to closely monitor press on future cases to see which ruling is cited in the respective outcomes.
