The MPAA may have some explaining to do following remarks of one of its lawyers in the Jammie Thomas trial. The remark in question, as written by Marie. L. van Uitert:
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
In other words, the MPAA shouldn’t have to provide “direct proof”—it’s pesky!—when suing old ladies, dopey college kids and John and Jane Does for as much as $150,000 per copyright violation.
How does that make sense, in human terms? Never mind the $150,000 per copyright violation—movie tickets are, what, $10 these days?—but the MPAA believes it should be able to extract such funds merely because, you know, it’s “difficult” to prove any wrongdoing? Stunning.
How old and unreasonably rigid is our legal system that this type of thing can be taken seriously?
Oh now I’m all worked up again.
via TorrentFreak
The proof is in the pudding…. wait, no pudding?
You mean they actually have to prove you were the person doing the illegal downloads? I thought we could just point at a random person on the street and say they murdered someone, then have them executed.
It still boggles me that this shit has gone on this long. I guess cash goes a long as compared to common sense and law.
“I guess cash goes a long as compared to common sense and law.”
This.
It is absolutely ridiculous that a lawyer would say something like this. The judge should throw the lawsuit out of court and issue a ruling against the MPAA for a frivilous lawsuit.
How stupid. They’d re-write the entire legal system if they could. Instead of re-writing their business plan, like they should.
“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”
Where in that quote do they say they don’t NEED proof. All they say is that it’s hard to get proof, and it is, it doesn’t say anything about what they think their legal burden is. Unless they said more than is being quoted, it sounds like you’re building a straw man.