MPAA Says It Doesn’t Need Proof To Sue You

The Motion Picture Association of America cries at night when it tallies up all the money it lost from jerks like you who download media from the Interwebs. They’d love to just hunt down all you criminals and break your kneecaps. Problem is, it’s incredibly hard to prove who is actually pirating software and who is distributing it, so they’ve decided to just operate outside the confines of the law… but still in the courtroom.

The MPAA isn’t keen on the idea of having to prove you actually did anything wrong before they sue your ass. That’s too much work. They think intellectual property holders have the right to collect damages to the tune of $150,000 without having to prove that any kind of copyright infringement has taken place.

MPAA attorney Marie L. van Uitert (pronounced “wee-tart”) recently said the following:

“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.”

I don’t see how this makes any sense at all. How can you reasonably expect to find someone guilty in a court of law without any evidence that a law has been broken? Isn’t that the complete opposite of the way the system works? Hey, MPAA, guess what? You infringed on my IP. Give me my $150,000. Right now.

Source

Please Recommend RipTen on Facebook

TAGS: , , , , , , , ,

Related Articles

  • Danielle

    Soo.. that means that they could just sue people that they think is breaking the law, with no proof, and they expect to get convictions? Think of the extra money they’ll throw away on court cases. It’s innocent until PROVEN guilty, yes? So there’s no way that this could really work out that well in their favor, assuming that the court system isn’t completely corrupt.

  • Dan Landis

    Companies with lots of money, who are in search of more money, tend to not care how much money they waste to get more money. The collective dickheads just don’t care about logic and are only concerned with winning. They can’t do this within the confines of the law, so they decide that real life is a script they can rewrite. I don’t think they will make any headway with this bullshit idea, but stranger things have happened.

  • Yelter Vaugon

    Either this post is missing some content, or it’s just a rant hinged off an out of context statement.

    Don’t get me wrong – the MPAA is full of shit and don’t deserve a cent, but this article/post is misleading, or at the very least confusing.

    Where have they said they are planning to sue some one without proof? Is there a current open case?

    Maybe this is related to another story I missed? If so apologies, and disregard this.

    Is there another quote where they’re actually saying they can arbitrarily sue some one that they can’t prove committed any kind of offense?

    Because, y’know, lawyers can get disbarred for instigating these kinds facetious legal cases that a judge has no hope of ruling in favor of.

    I just don’t really believe that plan is in the works.

    Cheers.

  • Krispy Demon

    Aren’t they already doing this? I recall they sued a woman for downloading/distributing some movie, but claimed their only proof was that she had the movie on her computer and that was apparently enough. Do I have my info wrong on that one?

  • Dan Landis

    Yelter,

    As hard as it is to believe, this is not taken out of context and is very much the stance of the MPAA, as well as the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). There is a case, one that is well publicized and the one Krispy Demon is referring to, that this stance has come from.

    The single mother, Jammie Thomas, initially lost her case and was ordered to pay $222,000 in damages. The judge, however, has set a hearing for August in which he might declare it a mistrial.

    There was no proof that Jammie Thomas had actually shared anything with anyone, something that is next to impossible to prove. The RIAA, however, downloads files from the people they plan on suing to prove that files were shared. The problem the RIAA faces is that this is technically not illegal because the RIAA is authorized to download its own music.

    The RIAA, with the support of the MPAA, are claiming that the existence of any kind of copyrighted material in a shared folder is an infringement, regardless of whether or not you have ever actually shared any files. The law does not protect them from “attempted” copyright infringement — the Copyright Act states that actual distribution of protected works must occur.

    The MPAA and RIAA feel that the existence of copyrighted material in a shared folder is only there if you intend to share it. It’s extremely difficult to prove whether or not you do actually share it, so they claim they shouldn’t have to prove it at all. It’s basically like if you buy a gun, you are guilty of shooting someone because that’s what guns are for. It’s a silly argument, one that probably costs the RIAA and MPAA more money (in legal fees) than what it would if they did nothing.

  • Yelter Vaugon

    Hi Dan,

    Thanks for clarifying. Sorry for my words of doubt in the first post. Without the additional knowledge you’ve just shared it sounded a bit crazy to me at first.

    What a horrible situation. I can only hope they spark enough attention to cause a legal backlash.

    When you put it alongside an analogy such as your gun example it’s pretty hard to imagine anyone in their right mind justifying the charges, especially when a shared folder can be for strictly personal use/intentions (For example me playing some of my albums over the network on my PS3 via a media server).