After bringing several file-sharing cases to a copyright tribunal following the implementation of a "three strikes" rule, the New Zealand recording industry group RIANZ has dropped the one case that was actively being defended. The group has not given an explanation.

The defendant was the account-holder in a shared apartment who said she had no idea how to use file-sharing software, or even what it was, according to an account posted by Tech Liberty NZ, the group that defended her. Dealing with her case "disrupted her studies and her part-time job," according to the post. After receiving the notices, she turned off her apartment's Internet access as well.

RIANZ was asking for NZ$2,669.25 in penalties (about US$2,178). That included NZ$1075.50 for the cost of the music (just five tracks, but RIANZ suggested they had been shared 90 times each), as well as NZ$373.75 to repay legal costs and NZ$1,250 as a "deterrent."

The copyright case also caused social disruptions among the defendant and her roommates.

"The flatmates refused to acknowledge any responsibility or offer to pay any money towards the penalty," wrote Tech Liberty. "Relationships in the flat broke down and the defendant left the flat soon after."

Overall, Tech Liberty says the case is a sorry tale of flawed legal notices and overreaching damages—but also a reason that those accused under New Zealand's "three strikes" regime should fight back.

Despite its concern over the social cohesion in this young woman's apartment, Tech Liberty offered a bizarrely antisocial suggestion at the end of its post: "Don't be the account holder. See if you can persuade your flatmates, family member or business to be the internet account holder so that they'll be the ones who are penalised. Of course this is just protecting yourself at the expense of someone else."