[Wired] MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits - Page 3 - Overclock.net

bobalobabingbong · 06-22-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poser

I think it is fairly important to remember that intent is a big part of determining guilt or levels thereof. Placing files in an openly accessible folder via a p2p network IS piracy. Criminal intent is a deeply debated and widely explored facet of most judicial systems... and is no different in this case.

Now... with that said, I do believe the IP laws in this country need to be re-evaluated given the new age of digitial media. Furthermore, the RIAA and MPAA should be held accountable for their flagrant misuse of the legal system to scare citizens into compliance with their interpretation of copyright infringement.

I for one, am still trying to resolve my own personal and moral response to IP, copyright infringement and piracy in the age of easily accesible digital reproduction and distribution.

Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized use of material that is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

Puting it into a share folder doesn't make you a pirate. Downloading it does.

stargate125645 · 06-22-08

Wow talk about a purposely misleading article title. Someone wants hits.

Jarhead · 06-22-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poser

I think there is some confusion here:

You can not convict in the United States without proof of guilt. That is not what is going on here. They are trying to differentiate between intent to infringe v. actual infringement.

Intent can be a nightmare to prove. But even then I have to give their legal department props for having big brass ones - not competence, but they sure have nerve.

The basis for the legal system is that if you have issue with what someone is doing, you have to be able to prove that they are doing it when you drag the person before a judge, whether in a criminal or civil suit. These guys have invented an entirely new legal theory(not really, sounds good though) - we win because.

Blameless · 06-22-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by verbatim81973

I thought u had to have PROOF before u can win a case.

Not in a civil case.

If all they are after is money, it's a civil case, and you are essentially guilty 'till proven innocent. The burden of proof is much lighter.

They don't need to "prove" anything. They just need to find it reasonably likely.

low strife · 06-22-08

They say that P2P users should be automatically liable.

So if I'm distributing the latest linux release, or downloading a WoW update, or downloading something from the BBC, then I'm automatically liable for pirating, and can be sued for over 100k per item?

Surely this can't go through...

Jarhead · 06-22-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargate125645

Wow talk about a purposely misleading article title. Someone wants hits.

It's not misleading at all, this is the MPAA:

"The only purpose for placing copyrighted works in the shared folder is, of course, to 'share,' by making those works available to countless other P2P networks," the MPAA wrote.

They want a judgment in their favor based entirely on what might have happened or what may happen, not what they can prove happened.

lattyware · 06-22-08

[Wired] MPAA Says Internet Usage is Proof of Intent to Infringe Copyright.

[Source]

Quote:

In a record-breaking case, the MPAA & RIAA have filed a lawsuit against every person on the planet who has ever used, attempted to use, or been near someone using, an internet connection.

"Anyone connecting to the internet is obviously trying to pirate. By proving their connection to the internet, we are proving their intent to infringe copyright."
-- Barry Wallace (MPAA Legal Team)

The RIAA and MPAA have said that a few internet message boards have shown signs of outrage over this, but as these boards are online, they are all criminals, and should be ignored.

One RIAA official was heard to say 'All your internets are belong to us.', while a colleague at the MPAA made an official statement: 'I'm-a-chargin' mah lawsuit!'

Poser · 06-22-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobalobabingbong

Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized use of material that is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

Puting it into a share folder doesn't make you a pirate. Downloading it does.

Actually, by the very definition that you cite... it does make you pirate. By placing copyrighted material in a share folder, you make it accessible to others... and in fact facilitate the unauthorized distribution (without the appropriate compensation) of said material. Distribution, the intent to distribute and/or the act of reproduction for distribution without expressed consent of the owner is an unauthorized use.

Licht · 06-22-08

In this country we have a saying : "Innocent until proven guilty." As this does not conform with it, they can't do it.

silverwing · 06-22-08

God damn poser, you seem to know all about this stuff... hey if I ever get sued I am totally going to PM you.

J/K

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Industry News > Software News
[Wired] MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)