Though the RIAA says it has stopped its large-scale litigation strategy against suspected file-swappers, the music trade group has decided that it will continue those cases that were already in process before last winter. When put this way, the whole process sounds antiseptic and rather boring, but it continues to affect real people like middle-aged New Hampshire woman Mavis Roy, who was baffled when the music labels accused her of sharing songs like "Real Niggaz," "Jigga My Nigga," and "Da Rockwilder" using BearShare. Unable to afford a lawyer, Roy was confused by the legal documents she received.

"I thought it was a scam and I was being pressured to send them money for something I have never done," she eventually wrote the court in a letter.

A long and winding road

The case was brought early in 2008. Roy was served with papers; she never responded. Within a few months, she was in default in a federal court case, and all that remained was for the judge to agree with the labels on how much money Roy would pay.

Fortunately for Roy, at this point she replied. She personally wrote the court a letter, explaining that she had not understood the notices, thought they were some kind of scam, and could not afford a lawyer to look into them. "I have never downloaded nor do I even know where to go to download," she wrote. "I feel they should have to show me something that proves this was done by me." She didn't know what to do next.

Daniel Lynch, the Chief Deputy Clerk of the court, wrote Roy a letter that explained when the litigation had started, when the damages hearing was to happen, and noted the fact she had personally been served with papers in April 2008. Beyond that, Lynch was legally unable to provide any sort of legal advice, though he did include a copy of the "Pro Se Litigant Guide" to help Roy learn more about defending herself.

The labels eventually moved to skip the damages hearing altogether (since Roy had not yet shown up in court) and have the judge make a decision without a hearing, but Roy did file an objection of her own in plain language. In four sentences, she objects to the cancellation, says that she didn't download any music, and "will appear in court. I know they [the labels] do not have proof of anything and that is why they are trying to push it through without a hearing."

At the bottom of the page, the "certificate of service" showing that a copy of the note was sent to the record labels' attorney, is handwritten.

Help arrives

But in late summer 2008, Roy's luck turned. She received help from the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire. A pair of professors agreed to help her, and they deputized their law students to assist. The case was even profiled in the local paper back in January. (Sound familiar? The Joel Tenenbaum case in Massachusetts is being argued by a Harvard Law professor and his students. The University of Maine School of Law has also taken up RIAA cases.)

An answer to the complaint was filed. The damages hearing was canceled, and the case began to move forward.

In a document filed last September, Roy describes every person in her household who might have "discoverable information" relevant to her defense. From that document, we learn that the home did possess a Dell computer of some kind, but that Roy's husband did not know how to use it. Roy herself used it but "did not use it to download or upload any music files."

Roy does have two children living at home, one 22 and one 19. While these might seem like far more likely targets of the lawsuit, Roy claims that neither child used the family computer (which is apparently quite old) in the last four years, and that neither has a computer of their own.

Roy's home computer actually became nonfunctional in the spring of 2007 and was removed from her home by her brother, who took it to his house to fix it. He found a machine infected with "one or more viruses" and then replaced the hard drive, recycling the original.

That last item is key, since the hard drive in the computer at the time of alleged infringement no longer exists. Forensic analysis of the drive might therefore not yield much useful information, and could make the case harder to prosecute.

The case is ongoing in federal court. It highlights a key weakness of the current enforcement proceedings, which can only target the account owner of the Internet connection in question—someone who may be baffled by the legal documents they're seeing even if the infringement was actually committed in their house by a child or friend.

It also shows how law schools are getting involved in such cases, giving their students a first taste of federal court by having them assist with file-swapping cases. A couple of law clinics defending a couple of defendants is no big deal, but it was probably wise of the music industry to stop filing new suits when it did; the last thing that record labels want is a host of bright young lawyers cutting their teeth on federal file-sharing cases in which the RIAA sues poor defendants for massive damages.

The case is scheduled for a two to three day trial later this year.