Re:I'm SHOCKED that a California Judge (Score 1)

Saying a link is the same as actually offering you the copyrighted data means that almost *every* sight is liable for copyright infringement. Because *everything* on the internet links to *everything* eventually.

Good point, except nobody is saying that a mere link to copyrighted data makes one contributorily or vicariously liable. Sure, it's one of the elements here, but it's not the entire cause of action. Read the judge's order I posted above. She explains the elements of both contributory and vicarious liability.

This judge chose to interpret the law in the harshest way forward and/or no opposing lawyers and technical experts explained to him the implications of his ruling. This ruling will be overturned when it is used against a well funded defendent.

If the Supreme Court re-decided Grokster, you may be right. Notice, however, that this case relies on precedent set in a case where Yahoo! was a defendant. If Yahoo! isn't the ultimate deep pocket with money to fight lawsuits, who is?

Since the judge is in california and I believe takes california interests to heart and was almost certainly hand-picked by the RIAA lawyers as a "friendly" judge based on past rulings I do not agree with your naive image of him as some impartial jurist enforcing the law without prejudice.

This was an action by the MPAA, not the RIAA. And the judge certainly wasn't picked by the plaintiffs. When one files a case in federal court, a judge is assigned to the case from a pool of judges that sit on the district court. Also, the judge is a woman, not a man, and you have pointed to no prior rulings in which the judge has provided favorable decisions on this issue or to this plaintiff in particular. Your accusations are absolutely baseless and uninformed.

You're letting your frustrations with the outcome of this case cloud the true reason it was decided the way it was: it's what Congress intended.