MPAA: Proof? What proof?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-06-23 03:22pm

The Motion Picture Association of America said Friday intellectual-property holders should have the right to collect damages, perhaps as much as $150,000 per copyright violation, without having to prove infringement.

"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances," MPAA attorney Marie L. van Uitert wrote Friday to the federal judge overseeing the Jammie Thomas trial.

"It is often very difficult, and in some cases, impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise; understandably, copyright infringers typically do not keep records of infringement," van Uitert wrote on behalf of the movie studios, a position shared with the Recording Industry Association of America, which sued Thomas, the single mother of two.

But the MPAA, long an ally to the RIAA, which has sued more than 20,000 individuals for file sharing of copyrighted music, told Judge Davis that peer-to-peer users automatically should be liable for infringement.

"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.

There's more to the article in the link. By their argument, anyone who owns a gun is guilty of murder and should be given the chair. What the fuck?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2008-06-23 03:33pm

If the judge grants that argument, it should be grounds for his impeachment.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-23 03:34pm

Fuck the MPAA. They aren't even trying to hide their motivations anymore that they're just after a blatant cash-grab.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-06-23 03:52pm

This is quite simply astonishing, even for the MPAA/RIAA mafioso. It's obvious these guys really don't give a shit about PR nor, for that matter, any minor things like legality.

If a case gets passed by this and sets precedent, then I have to wonder whether Obama, if elected, will do anything to curbstomp these arseholes.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2008-06-23 03:55pm

Every time the media enforcement industry reaches a new low, the presence of yet another sub-basement is revealed. How long until Accelerando becomes fact and the Mafia takes literal control?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2008-06-23 04:21pm

I'm sure they define torrents as p2p software, and as we all know, plenty of individuals and groups use torrents to release content that they have created (and sometimes, sold) themselves.

Rahvin · Post by **Rahvin** » 2008-06-23 04:27pm

...so, if this holds, can I legally sue each and every member of the MPAA for stealing my (nonexistent) intellectual property? I mean, I don't have to prove infringement, right? So I can just take my $150,000 (each) and laugh?

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2008-06-23 05:01pm

I wonder if they realize how open this leaves THEM, when they use p2p networks to sting their targets. No, they're not infringing themselves, but they're operating p2p software...

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-06-23 08:16pm

White Haven wrote:I wonder if they realize how open this leaves THEM, when they use p2p networks to sting their targets. No, they're not infringing themselves, but they're operating p2p software...

It doesn't leave them open at all. Are they going to sue themselves?

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2008-06-23 10:46pm

The MPAA already collects damages... in the form of a little surcharge on every damn DVD-R that's sold!

Fuck 'em!

Post by **Edi** » 2008-06-24 01:25am

phongn wrote:
White Haven wrote:I wonder if they realize how open this leaves THEM, when they use p2p networks to sting their targets. No, they're not infringing themselves, but they're operating p2p software...
It doesn't leave them open at all. Are they going to sue themselves?

What prevents anyone from making claims against them for using other stuff that is on P2P networks? Make some projections about use, make an accusation, and without burden of proof, they're liable. It really does work that way using their logic, though of course the reality is a bit different and it would not happen. But the first time one such countersuit ended up in court, it would take the bottom away from their stupid claim.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-24 01:43am

Edi wrote: What prevents anyone from making claims against them for using other stuff that is on P2P networks? Make some projections about use, make an accusation, and without burden of proof, they're liable. It really does work that way using their logic, though of course the reality is a bit different and it would not happen. But the first time one such countersuit ended up in court, it would take the bottom away from their stupid claim.

The biggest problem is the MPAA has gobs and gobs of money and well paid lawyers. Most average people can't afford to sue them, let alone have a chance of winning because our legal system's so fucked up. So the MPAA can just drown people out in legislation until they're so broke they can't sue.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-06-24 02:15am

Is lobbying judges legal now or something? Since when does burden of proof not apply to any civil or criminal case?

KlavoHunter · Post by **KlavoHunter** » 2008-06-24 02:33am

General Zod wrote:The biggest problem is the MPAA has gobs and gobs of money and well paid lawyers. Most average people can't afford to sue them, let alone have a chance of winning because our legal system's so fucked up. So the MPAA can just drown people out in legislation until they're so broke they can't sue.

It's the same problem as Scientology, writ large.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-06-24 03:14am

Isn't "That burden of proof is too high" the legal way of saying "I got nothing"?