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).

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.

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.