1 edit | Burden of Proof The following is what I consider to be the most disturbing part of the ZDNet article: quote:
The Justice Department has indicated that it won't target peer-to-peer networks for two reasons: Imprisoning file-swapping teens on felony charges isn't the department's top priority, and it's always difficult to make criminal charges stick.
The Pirate Act was crafted to respond to the Justice Department's concern. "Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in March. "Prosecutors can rarely justify bringing criminal charges, and copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they can afford to do so. In a world in which a computer and an Internet connection are all the tools you need to engage in massive piracy, this is an intolerable predicament."
Apparently it is more acceptable to sue the shit out of teenagers than jail them - without having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually did what they were accused of. |
|
|
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
London, ON | Boohoo, they have to show proof before charging someone? WTF kind of complaint is that. Have the RIAA never heard of innocent until proven guilty?
They just want the law to be "we can sue whoever the hell we want, and not have to have any substantial proof whatsoever." |
|
| reply to J D McDorce
said by J D McDorce:
The following is what I consider to be the most disturbing part of the ZDNet article: quote:
The Justice Department has indicated that it won't target peer-to-peer networks for two reasons: Imprisoning file-swapping teens on felony charges isn't the department's top priority, and it's always difficult to make criminal charges stick.
The Pirate Act was crafted to respond to the Justice Department's concern. "Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in March. "Prosecutors can rarely justify bringing criminal charges, and copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they can afford to do so. In a world in which a computer and an Internet connection are all the tools you need to engage in massive piracy, this is an intolerable predicament."
Apparently it is more acceptable to sue the shit out of teenagers than jail them - without having to prove within a reasonable doubt that they actually did what they were accused of.
This is bs, nuff said. |
|
| reply to yabos
The RIAA already has the ability to take civil actions using the terms that you so eloquently state. A large part of The Pirate Act appears to be to enable the United States government to pursue actions under civil law that they can't prove under criminal law. |
|
| reply to J D McDorce
The poor copyright owners (like Universal, BMG, etc) have been left alone to fend for themselves against those nigh-omnipotent file-sharers. So obviously it's necessary to bring in the awesome power of government to crush the file sharers. Yeah. Right. That's why the RIAA is losing so many file sharing suits; it's because their ultra-rich opponents have such great lawyers. Uh-huh. |
|
