MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by cycocelica, Jun 23, 2008.

  1. cycocelica macrumors 68000


    Apr 28, 2005
    Redmond, WA
    MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

    Isn't this what we did to "witches" in Salem?

    Lets just throw our rights out the window! YAY! :rolleyes:
  2. zioxide macrumors 603


    Dec 11, 2006

    That's it, I'm suing everyone I walk by on the street for $1 million dollars. I won't even have to prove if they did anything. :D
  3. rhett7660 macrumors G4


    Jan 9, 2008
    Sunny, Southern California
    You have to love both the MPAA and the RIAA.... :rolleyes:

    Good lord what next..
  4. David G. macrumors 65816

    Apr 10, 2007
    It's a shame 99.999% of all attorneys give the others such a bad name.
  5. Wild-Bill macrumors 68030


    Jan 10, 2007
    The MPAA and RIAA need to wise the hell up. They need to convince the studios to restructure the game. STOP spending so much damn money on movies. STOP letting recording artists languish in a studio for months at a time with the clock running. Don't let them into the studio until they are ready to record. Stop paying artists such ridiculous amounts of money. Streamline the processes.

    They are in serious need of some business process re-engineering. But I guess they prefer to take the easy route and just sue at random until they find someone to pay up.

    Very soon you'll see the MPAA and RIAA having to hide their offices much like the Civil Liberties folks have to do. hahhahaha
  6. andiwm2003 macrumors 601


    Mar 29, 2004
    Boston, MA
    so we throw all gun owners in jail because they have guns. no need to proof they ever shot somebody. and all people who have cars. because they could have driven drunk. no need to prove that either. how about a fence around the US and declare it a jail for all citizens. oh wait, they actually start building a fence.....

    is there a way to declare the mpaa unconstitutional and make it disappear?
  7. Dagless macrumors Core


    Jan 18, 2005
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    We do that here ;) recently a father found bullets in his sons room, not even a gun. He shopped him to the police and got 3 years (even though the mandatory sentence is usually 5 for possession of a firearm). And rightly so.

    On this news? Ouch. Surely this won't actually go through?
  8. AppleMatt macrumors 68000


    Mar 17, 2003
    Madness. Over here in the UK a young lady got fined £75 because her three year old kid dropped some sausage roll on the floor whilst eating it. A pigeon ate it all up, but that didn't stop the council doing her for littering.

    Even better, when she contested it in court she lost, had to pay their legal fees and a 'victim charge'. Victim charge?!

  9. nbs2 macrumors 68030


    Mar 31, 2004
    A geographical oddity
    I think you guys are misunderstanding the issue, while still rightly being upset.

    From what I can tell, what is being asked is that rather than present direct evidence of the violation, that circumstantial evidence be admitted. So, we know that song X is being shared by person A. It is near impossible to tell if person B downloaded X from A, but since A is a source that uses the same sharing service as B and A is allowing X to be shared, B probably got X from A.

    This is still disturbing, because it would greatly expand the ease with which claims could be successful, and could allow the AAs to dip multiple times. Additionally, just because something is being shared doesn't mean anybody downloaded it.

Share This Page