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.
Here is a simple analogy: I walk into your store, brandish a firearm and tell you to empty your cash til. However, before you can hand over the booty, I lose my nerve and bolt faster than the downward spiral of britney spears career. The entire episode is captured on your state of the art 'leet, vhs surveillance system. The authorities then use that to identify me, arrest me... and charge me with, among other things, attempted armed robbery. My intent was to in fact, perpetrate said crime, irrespective of the outcome.
The RIAA would like to be afforded the same criminal interpretation when it comes to IP and copyright infringement. Intent to pirate, is no more allowable under the law than actual piracy. In this particular instance, the RIAA and MPAA, have more than a fair amount of legal precedant to support their plea.
However, if both the MPAA and RIAA, would start producing more than populace tripe and be reasonable about pricing... they would probably make much greater gains against piracy than their current campaign of demonizin midwest mothers affords them.
I realize that the debate is whether or not she had the intent
to distribute, but this is a civil trial.
So get ready for another theoretical situation:
You walk into my store, and you point a gun to my face. You tell me to give up my cash, but before I can do so, you bolt out faster than a Nehalem processor on liquid nitrogen (or imagine something else fast). Now, you're definitely guilty of attempted
robbery under a criminal trial. However, I won't be able to sue you for the amount of money that I was going to give you before you left.