The MPAA Says They Shouldn't Need Proof To Sue You
A legal brief submitted by an attorney representing The Motion Picture Association of America states that intellectual-property holders should have the right to collect up to $150,000 per violation without having to actually prove copyright infringement, Wired reports. The MPAA attorney, who seems to feel very inconvenienced by the whole "due process" thing writes, "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." Details, inside...
This document is among other briefs submitted to a judge overseeing the Jammie Thomas trial, the only RIAA case ever to go to trial. Thomas was sued by the RIAA for $222,000 for "making available" 24 songs on the Kazaa network. At the time, Judge Davis instructed jurors that they only needed to find that Thomas had an open share folder and not that the songs were actually copied or transferred. However, the judge has since suggested that he made have made a mistake in giving this instruction and is deciding whether to order a mistrial.
The article says,
The deadline to submit briefs to the judge was Friday. Among the briefs, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the United States Internet Industry Association and the Computer and Communications Industry Association all jointly filed a brief, saying the law did not allow damages for "attempted" copyright infringement.
"Given the serious consequences that flow from copyright’s strict liability regime, the court should resist plaintiffs imprecations to expand that regime absent an unequivocal expression of Congressional intent," the groups wrote, noting that the language in the Copyright Act demands actual distribution to the public of protected works.
It was a similar brief in tone to the one that a group of 10 intellectual property scholars lodged earlier in the week.
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.
It is absurd that lawyers, of all people, believe we should live in a society where clear and concrete proof needn't be necessary to establish one's guilt. Proving cases of copyright infringement is far from impossible. It is only a matter of spending the proper amount of time and money to do so.
MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits [Wired]
Capitol v. Thomas [Wiki]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam malesuada commodo erat et molestie. Duis pellentesque aliquam bibendum. Suspendisse venenatis lobortis eleifend. Mauris id est sed lectus convallis aliquam.
Post a comment
Comments:
In related news, I've decided to sue the MPAA for 100 billion dollars for infringing . . . . on something . . . .
I say we all file $149,999.99 infringement violations against the MPAA without stating what proof or evidence we have that they ripped us off with ideas for movies. According to their lawyers, they should have to pay up, right?
Yesterday a self righteous douche brought a pirated copy of the new Indiana Jones movie over to my neighbors. Who can I turn the smug asshole in to?
If there's no proof, how do /they/ know it happened?
She's a witch, I say! Burn her!
With the current level of unsophisticated computer users, and with music being automatically placed in a shared music folder, having copyrighted music in a shared folder is the norm. My daughter had a college internet account suspended because of the music files (that came with the computer) in a shared music folder whenever she logged onto the college network. She had no idea about shared folders and had to be walked through the process of closing shared folders.
Perhaps the MPAA should change their slogan to:
"Fuck you, pay us."
22 songs on the Kazaa network? Are they also planning on suing me for video taping the 2002 World Series without the express written consent of MLB? Jeez.
Dear MPAA Attorney
I'm intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Yours in "Truth,"
The Justice Department.
Come On Lawyers!!! Won't some one out their PLEASE sue the MPAA lawyers for Copywrite infringement on the same principals?! If you don't need proof than their guilty too.
$150,000 please!
Guess what? Drug dealers (at least, the smart ones) don't keep records of their illegal transactions either. Nor do muggers, for that matter...
Whats really disturbing is that the Judge in the case bought into this in the first place and used it in the jury instruction. Its a positive sign that he is correcting his mistake but the simple fact that he allowed it in the first place is very very bad for the rule of law. The law is suppsoed to have a positive affect on the lives of citizens and protect them from big business, not vice versa. If the courts reversed this waky trend that corporations are 'people' I dare say the consumerist woudl quickly become irrelevant from lack of current material...
I'm suing for the hour and a half of my life that I'll never get back for watching "The Happening"
The Wired article has a bit of spin on it. The lawyer is suggesting that copyright infringement should include instances where you're explicitly making copyrighted material available. It's similar to the change of "possession with intent to traffic" when you're caught with 2 kilos of coke and a list of clients. He's saying that, having a shared folder, and making it available shows that kind of willful intent. You would still need proof that there is a shared folder, that the material made available in the folder is copyrighted, that the folder has been made available, and that folder is on the defendants computer.
That being said I think it's wrong. It obviously favors legal assaults on the small guy where the level of infringement is so small, it's undetectable.
I'd like to sue the MPAA for releasing gems like "I Know Who Killed Me," "Howard the Duck," "Catwoman," etc. Also, we should get additional damages for any Madonna or J.Lo vehicle foisted upon us.
If the price for a movie or CD wasn't so damn high then there wouldn't be ANY problems. Who the hell wants to pay $12-$15 for a CD in which not all songs will be very good. Sure, you can use iTunes, but a lot would like to have the physical disc.
Same goes for movies. $15-$18 for a DVD, $25-$40 for a Blu-Ray, and $~5 to rent a movie.
fuck it, screw the whole 'due process' crap and lets live in a world controlled by corporations and government oversight.
well...we're almost there.
I love how lawyers will try anything to win without thinking ahead of the consequences their actions and the resulting precedent will set for future, unrelated cases.
I find it odd that the penalties for "stealing" music/movies on P2P is more steep than actually stealing a CD/DVD from the store.
@zentex: That includes the stunt the RIAA pulled with dropping one dead-end case against somebody only to refile it in hopes of getting it put on a different judge's desk. If anything these jokers are showing the whole country how anybody with a ton of money can game the legal system.
We need more good guys like Ray Beckerman on the job to help protect citizens from their own court system, and that's sad.
Is this really unprecedented?
Does a child need to kill someone in order to be arrested while caught planning to blow up her school? No.
If I hire someone to shoot my spouse, I can be arrested though she isn't yet harmed.
What if I'm stuffing clothing into my underpants at the GAP. Can I be arrested before I walk out?
Ah, but here's a question - if I participate in a NAMBLA pedophile P2P, can I be arrested BEFORE I download pics or without evidence of downloading them?
Should the laws protecting copyright be MORE aggressive than anti-pedophile legislation?
Just thinking here. I'm not a lawyer.
"Yesterday a self righteous douche brought a pirated copy of the new Indiana Jones movie over to my neighbors..."
The entertainment industry has become fat-and-happy selling crap to consumers and following an antiquated marketing and sales model. In the 80s, you'd have to spend $25 on a CD with one decent track and 12 lame ones and, until the mid 90s, if you wanted a copy you'd have to settle for a poor quality cassette. Record companies needed the technology to stay old-school for their sales model to work. Even in the 90s, consumers begged for online music but the music industry refused, creating an underground demand on P2P networks and making it clear that music has no intrinsic value. Even after Apple was successful selling tracks for 99 cents, the big music companies still held back until they were nearly bankrupt. Now the RIAA is getting their rocks off by suing grandmothers and teenagers. The reality is that music is worth, at the max, only $.99 per track. To many people, the music on their iPods is worth absolutely nothing, and the availability of free music has opened up new artists that wouldn't have otherwise been purchased. The music industry needs to stop this obnoxious, greedy harping and change their business strategy. Maybe it means less profit for them, but we live in a country where consumer demand determines the value of the products we buy. And it's clear that the value of the products the music industry is selling is worth substantially less today that it was twenty years ago.
"copyright infringers typically do not keep records of infringement."
Right. Thieves usually have detailed journals of the houses they've broken into along with what was stolen. Car thieves typically keep record of what cars they stole, when, and the chop shop that they sold it to. Drug dealers keep books on all of their dealings - buying and selling - as well as the full names and addresses of sources and customers. These records are usually found in plane sight in the criminal's home or on their person at the time of questioning, bearing the label of "CRIMINAL ACTIVITY LOG".
Copyright infringement really should get special treatment.
*Puke*
@acknight: There isn't. The lawyer is suggesting there should be one. His reasoning is that "shared folders" have an obvious function, and there is a considerable step in proving actual distribution.
AMERICA....FUCK YEAH
You know, I once connected to a P2P network and I'm pretty sure it was the MPAA that copied some of my songs. Well, no. I don't actually have evidence...but who needs that?
Of those who are bitching, how many of you still go to the theater and watch movies? I myself have boycott the theater, and refuse to see any movie that is made by the companies that front the MPAA. I do have netflix, but, I think they make a lot less money off me that route.
However, I will be temporarily lifting my ban on theaters for the new batman movie. I know, I'm weak, but, come on, its Batman.
Corporate-Fascist power play occurring.
Kramer: I think we are looking half a millimeter.
Elaine: Can it cut that thin?
Kramer: Oh, I've cut slices so thin, I couldn't even see them.
Elaine: How did you know you cut it?
Kramer: Well, I guess I just assumed.
@EricaKane:
But the lawyers are required under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure to certify that their client has a prima facie case.
If they have filed this suit & have certified the case under Rule 11, the judge can hold them in contempt, although it's rare & unfortunate that any judge ever does this.
It's amusing (and gratifying) to see the Judiciary gradually wake up, like a Walt Disney cartoon of Sleeping Beauty. Kudos to the Defense to patiently explaining how these P2P networks work, and the holes in the MIAA argument.
You mean you actually need to prove that something was actually taken?!
In a court of law?!
I'd add to that: prosecutors (or the MIAA) would have to prove that if the defendant had the King James bible on his P2P directory, they'd have to prove that, as a result, someone else received a KJ copy in its entirety.
Otherwise, they're suing for Grand Theft Auto, when only a lug-nut was "taken".
("Taken" being a topic for another conversation.)
"It is absurd that lawyers, of all people, believe we should live in a society where clear and concrete proof needn't be necessary to establish one's guilt. Proving cases of copyright infringement is far from impossible. It is only a matter of spending the proper time and money to do so."
It's absurd that in this day and age "journalists" do not know the function of a lawyer! As the first post stated so well, an attorney advocates the position of his client, not his own. The attorney does not need to believe in the client's views to bring an action. He cannot bring an action on his own, unless your Jack Thompson and we see what has happened to him.
Please refrain from lawyer bashing until you understand that which you bash.
@SuffolkHouse: Murder and sexual abuse, in the two examples provided, are not even close to piracy on any reasonable person's scale of morality.
The whole concept of piracy = theft assumes that those who pirate would otherwise buy, which is absolutely not the case, so even the comparison between piracy (not really any property lost) and shoplifting (property is now lost and cannot be sold) is flawed.
@SuffolkHouse: There are laws on the books that make it illegal to attempt murder. Not so for this case.
Whatever.... I just don't really care anymore. I've learned to live without the MPAA and RIAA product.
Congrats MPAA/RIAA you've opted for irrelevance. Hope you can turn a profit on irrelevance. Good luck with that...
Personally I would sue the MPAA for having a crapy ratings system that confuses more parents than helps them.
Is this really unprecedented?
Does a child need to kill someone in order to be arrested while caught planning to blow up her school? No.
Of course not. Lives are at stake.
If I hire someone to shoot my spouse, I can be arrested though she isn't yet harmed.
Again, lives are at stake.
What if I'm stuffing clothing into my underpants at the GAP. Can I be arrested before I walk out?
Actually, no you can't. It's not shoplifting until you leave the premises.
Ah, but here's a question - if I participate in a NAMBLA pedophile P2P, can I be arrested BEFORE I download pics or without evidence of downloading them?
Should the laws protecting copyright be MORE aggressive than anti-pedophile legislation?
No, they shouldn't. I put protecting record companies' outdated business model pretty low on the priorities list, much lower than protecting children from people who want to diddle them.
@acknight: I've always found this amusing too (in a sad panda kind of way). The reason is obvious - when someone shoplifts the disc, RIAA and MPAA don't lose any money as the store already bought it - it's the store that is out the money.
@SuffolkHouse:
Well for shoplifting I'm pretty dang sure that you have to attempt to leave the store for it to be considered shoplifting legally. You might get in some *other* sort of trouble for stuffing things into your underpants though. Vandalism perhaps?
@Greasy Thumb Guzik First, this issue dealt with jury instructions approved by the Judge and sent to the jury, not filing a new case.
I'm sure the RIAA or whoever else has enough evidence (i.e. logs) to prove that something happened, or else the jury wouldn't have taken 5 minutes or so to find this woman liable.
That being said, the Judge realized there was a problem with his instructions and didn't want to get reversed on appeal.
There was a good faith reason for including that language in the jury instruction (i.e. the other case since vacated) so it is not an unreasonable extension of the law.
@Applekid:
Agreed. Planning to commit murder and "planning to exchange music" aren't even remotely the same. Murder is illegal and always has been. Exchanging music has been, until very recently, perfectly legal. Even today, only the RIAA and their cherry-picked judges consider it to be unlawful to exchange music. However the marketplace has not made this determination. The music industry is fighting and failing to keep itself relevant. Music will continue to exist with or without middlemen selling to consumers. Either the music industry needs to embrace what consumers are saying, or they need to get lost.
I thought these cases were civil cases not criminal. If that is the case none of the comparisons to other crimes matter because this isn't being considered a crime.
It is one party whining they want money from another party for supposed damages. The supposedly damaged party should have to prove and have evidence they were damaged.
IE: computer forensic proof actual distribution happened. They also are not going after downloaders but uploaders who are not making any profit from any supposed distribution. I also have issue with the dollar amounts. Maybe they should be limited to suing for the face value of the DVD for each time said person allowed a download from their P2P share file but only with concrete proof of such. When they can only nail someone for their actual losses of say $14.00 x 2 downloads for a total of $28.00 the MPAA would quit trying to make an example of people and suing them for huge sums of money.
They are doing this to try to scare people out of fear that they number will come up, this has nothing to do with actual redress for financial losses. It is using the civil courts as a bully tactic.
Oh cmon. The lawyers do what the MPAA tell them to do.
Prosecute their case with vigor. Anything less than that, and a lawyer is not doing their job.