Groups want to be able to file $150,000 lawsuits without evidence of a crime
I've recently highlighted several reports showing that the RIAA's method of identifying and suing P2P users is painfully inaccurate. This was further illuminated by the recent case of Jammie Thomas, a Minnesota woman who was originally ordered to pay $220,000 for making files available via broadband, but may now see a new trial.
Why? Because the Judge has decided that actually showing evidence of a crime might be a good idea. In response to that ruling, a few weeks ago the MPAA publicly stated that they should be able to collect as much as $150,000 in damages from individuals without any real evidence of wrong doing. Says the MPAA:
"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances"
Wired's Threat Level Blog says the RIAA has now filed their response to the Thomas case, and like the MPAA, apparently the organization feels that that concepts like "evidence" and "proof" are somewhat over-rated:
"Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners' rights online – and would solely benefit those who seek to freeload off plaintiff's investment."
Edited by savagebunny - 7/1/08 at 11:51am