Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Now MPAA want the burden of proof removed in litigation!

<< < (4/4)

CWuestefeld:
If you read the lawyers brief in full he does seem to be assuming that just having files and a P2P client is SUFFICIENT to PROVE distribution.-Carol Haynes (June 24, 2008, 04:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
No. The lawyer says virtually nothing about proof. The only reference that I can see is the top of page 2, ""The only purpose for placing copyrighted works in the shared folder is, of course, to 'share' ".

The document is not about what constitutes proof. It's about what would constitute infringment (should that act be proven). The lawyer is asserting that the act of making a file available, whether or not it is actually downloaded, constitutes infringement. He does not in any way other than the oblique (and stupid) assertion on page 2 address what might constitute proof of making the file available.

In other words, the document says "if we could prove that the defendant made the file available, then that would constitute a violation of the plaintiff's copyright". That's it. You can certainly criticize this statement, but the author of the article is criticizing some other, made-up strawman of an assertion.

jgpaiva:
 :huh: This discussion shows why millions are spent in courts with stuff that apparently seems so simple: Each person understands what they see in a different way than the next person...
Please, do continue, though.. I'm enjoying the talk :)

J-Mac:
First, if the story is accurate at all this is a disgrace.  Some here say it is misreported - I don't know how that was determined.

But my big question is.......

Why is the MPAA going after a person for downloading "songs"??  I thought the RIAA did that and the MPAA went after movie downloaders.  Weird!

Jim

J-Mac:
On another level, the article doesn't seem to make sense. The defendant is accused of offering songs for download. Yet he's not being sued by the RIAA -- he's being sued by the MPAA. In other words, it's not the music industry that's suing him for music, it's the movie industry that's suing him for music.
-CWuestefeld (June 24, 2008, 11:45 AM)
--- End quote ---

I just commented on this in the previous post - I had missed this part of a post altogether.  But it IS a valid question.

Jim

J-Mac:
I just read the brief and the MPAA attorney is indeed saying that making it available in a shared folder with a P2P application installed should be considered as evidence.  Sounds like they are wanting what is known as "circumstantial evidence" to be recognized as hard evidence. Which will never pass a constitutionality test, IMO.

And as for the arguments here about murderers and a presumption of guilt based only on intent & means, I think that is tragically flawed.

Jim

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page