It's a bit hard to follow, but this is good new for file sharers......
In [a href="vny!://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm#UMG_v_Lindor"]UMG v. Lindor[/a], Judge David G. Trager [a href="vny!://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/12/judge-adopts-magistrates.html"]rejected[/a] Ms. Lindor's [a href="vny!://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_lindor_061212objection"]objection[/a] to a [a href="vny!://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_lindor_061212ReportRecommendationPreclusion"]Magistrate's Report[/a], in which Ms. Lindor complained that the Report could be read to imply that 'the mere presence of a shared files folder on an individual's computer would ... satisfy the requirements of 17 USC 106(3)', saying that the Report of Magistrate Robert M. Levy could not be so read, since '[t]he report and recommendation does not comment on whether or not the mere presence of a shared files folder satisfies 17 USC 106(3).
Instead, it makes clear that [a href="vny!://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_lindor_061222OrderAdoptingRecommendationsRePreclusion"]plaintiffs will have the burden of proving actual sharing[/a]. [Report and Recommendation, at 5] ('At trial, plaintiffs will have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant did indeed infringe plaintiff's copyrights by convincing the fact-finder, based on the evidence plaintiffs have gathered, that defendant actually shared sound files belonging to plaintiffs.') (emphasis added)'"
