Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| reply to howrman
Re: First RIAA Lawsuit Heads to Trial
Wouldn't part of the process look at the methods the RIAA used to legally obtain the user's information and documentation that the RIAA uses to determine if the end user did indeed infringe or cause monetary harm to them?
And if it did cause monetary harm how that amount was derived? |
|
howrman
join:2000-07-08
Philadelphia, PA
| The RIAA's proof will consist of documentation that, at a specified date and time, IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx was sharing a song whose rights have been assigned to the RIAA. Further, the RIAA will produce proof from the defendant's ISP that, at the time of the alleged infringement, that IP address belonged to the defendant. Lastly, (and most problematic) the RIAA will have to prove that the defendant had control of the computer when the alleged infringement occurred. That should constitute a prima facia case. Since the hard drive was lost by the plaintiff, the RIAA cannot and will not have to show that the protected song and sharing software existed on the hard drive. |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| I'm just curious.. I could say, create a song sharing web site and log all the visitors there. Take a random sampling of my web logs, dummy a tool, screen shots what have you allege visitor xx was hosting a song...
I'm asking because I'm no lawyer....
How can they prove how many people actually got a file from her?
I mean wouldn't that be like a police officer pulling you over for doing 40 in a 35 and fining you for 200 in a 35 because you're in a car capable of the speed? |
|
howrman
join:2000-07-08
Philadelphia, PA
| It's illegal to offer a song for downloading, even if nobody took the defendant up on her offer. The number of times a song was actually downloaded is only relevant to the extent that it bears on the RIAA's actual damages. However, I suspect that the RIAA will seek only statutory damages (i.e. the amount specified in the statute). If so, the RIAA won't have to prove that it had any actual damages. Statutory damages are set precisely because it may be difficult or impossible for a plaintiff to prove actual damages. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to Neyland
What's the case? Illegally possessing, illegally sharing or both? If they are trying to prove she illegally shared the song, does the sharing software she used contain a download counter? Is that what they will use for proof that it was downloaded x times?
If they cannot prove how many people downloaded it, then I agree. In fact, I think it's even worse. It's like owning a really fast car doing 35 in a 35. The cop assumes you are guilty because you drive a really fast car and he knows you have been speeding even if you aren't speeding now...
But -- this is a civil case where the burden of proof is not as strict as criminal. (i.e. The glove doesn't have to fit!) |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to howrman
I'm not doubting you but do you have a link to the statute? I'd like to read it. |
|
Couch Potato
What?
Premium
join:2004-08-29
Evansville, IN | reply to howrman
If they can't prove they have any actual damages then how/why are they entitled to anything ?! |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Because they paid, before hand, to have it in the statue. I believe it's $700-$150k per song. That's quite a gap eh? |
|
