Good news for the anti-download campaign now. The Recording Industry Association Of America has won an appeals decision against a file sharer who disputed that she was guilty of copyright violation because she had downloaded music via a P2P network.
Cecilia Gonzalez disputed an RIAA demand for compensation for $3500 for her file sharing on the grounds of "intent to purchase". She argued that she only used P2P to sample music prior to making a purchase, pointing to her 250 disc CD collection as proof of her intent. The defence was based on a common argument against the music industry's anti-P2P litigation - that most people who use file sharing networks are actually big purchasers of music from legitimate sources, the illegitimate music collection informing legal purchases.
But the US Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit have rejected Gonzalez's use of this argument as a defence. After doing so they fined her $22,500 for copyright infringement.
The court decision is good news for the RIAA - setting a legal precedent that 'intent to purchase' is not a defence for using P2P, and providing a deterrent for other accused downloaders considering disputing RIAA claims against them. It will put the RIAA's legal department in a good mood ahead of its potentially high profile case against "Chicago mother of five" Patricia Santangelo, and 14 year old Brittany Chan, the latter an interesting case following the successful legal claim by the teenager's mother that she could not be held responsible for her daughter's file sharing.