[Wired] MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits - Page 4 - Overclock.net

ElMikeTheMike · 06-22-08

It doesn't really matter what the MPAA says. They can make all the outrageous claims they want.

All that matters are what judges decide.

I don't know why no one else realizes this. What the MPAA says IS NOT LAW.

WhiteCrane · 06-22-08

You don't need 100% proof in civil court.

bobalobabingbong · 06-22-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poser

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.

Touché.

But say I put music I paid for on a share folder to get it at work?

stargate125645 · 06-22-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhead

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.

It is misleading because the MPAA still has to have circumstantial evidence. No proof that a file was actually shared is needed is the way it should be written. And make no mistake, there is a huge difference. The article title implies that the MPAA can simply point their finger at someone and have them fined, whereas in actuality the MPAA has to have proof that the files were available to be shared. The MPAA quote was paraphrased to change the meaning. I'm not arguing that the MPAA is in the right, but the article was clearly written to garner attention. And really, what other purpose is there for having files in a shared directory? There isn't one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobalobabingbong

Touché.

But say I put music I paid for on a share folder to get it at work?

It's called a "USB thumb drive." They cost next to nothing these days. Or you could burn a CD or DVD with the files... There is no excuse.

lattyware · 06-22-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargate125645

It is misleading because the MPAA still has to have circumstantial evidence. No proof that a file was actually shared is needed is the way it should be written. And make no mistake, there is a huge difference. The article title implies that the MPAA can simply point their finger at someone and have them fined, whereas in actuality the MPAA has to have proof that the files were available to be shared. The MPAA quote was paraphrased to change the meaning. I'm not arguing that the MPAA is in the right, but the article was clearly written to garner attention. And really, what other purpose is there for having files in a shared directory? There isn't one.

It's called a "USB thumb drive." They cost next to nothing these days. Or you could burn a CD or DVD with the files... There is no excuse.

So you are saying you shouldn't be allowed to transfer a file to yourself, that you own, over the internet?

I know that isn't what you meant - but that's what you are saying.

I'm not saying pirates are right, but it would be easy enough to argue you, for example, automatically download into that directory, and forgot to change that directory when you downloaded the copyrighted files, and hence, did not intend to distribute them.

Perry · 06-22-08

Guilty until proven innocent! This is pure gold!

And by gold I of course mean bull****.

bobalobabingbong · 06-22-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargate125645

And really, what other purpose is there for having files in a shared directory? There isn't one.

To get at it when you want from anywhere maybe?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargate125645

It's called a "USB thumb drive." They cost next to nothing these days. Or you could burn a CD or DVD with the files... There is no excuse.

Excuse for what.

Just because there are pirates that use share folders to do it, doesn't mean I can't use one to move my music around.

stargate125645 · 06-22-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by lattyware

So you are saying you shouldn't be allowed to transfer a file to yourself, that you own, over the internet?

I know that isn't what you meant - but that's what you are saying.

I'm not saying pirates are right, but it would be easy enough to argue you, for example, automatically download into that directory, and forgot to change that directory when you downloaded the copyrighted files, and hence, did not intend to distribute them.

That's neither what I'm saying nor what I meant. There are other ways that would actually be easier, so there is no reason to use a program that puts files out for theft. Like I said, no excuse.

Azazel · 06-22-08

So... I like to turn the music up in the car sometimes and other people hear it without paying. I guess I'm a pirate for distributing and they are too for listening without buying. The new MPAA slogan "All Your Money Are Belong To Us!"

Licht · 06-22-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azazel

So... I like to turn the music up in the car sometimes and other people hear it without paying. I guess I'm a pirate for distributing and they are too for listening without buying. The new MPAA slogan "All Your Money Are Belong To Us!"

If people paid you to turn it way up so they could that actually would be illegal because you would be using it for commercial purposes. What crazy laws we have.

		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)