gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
 ·Suddenlink
 ·Cirtex Hosting
| Depends on the crime
It really depends on the crime. In some cases you can be charged with a crime without doing the crime.
One that comes to mind, is called criminal intent.
If you plan to do a crime, but never do it, can still be a crime. I am not saying this can apply to this guy or his case.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 |
|
2kmaro
Think
Premium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave
clubs: 
| Key word here would be 'intent' and I don't think you can prove intent-to-share with others just because it's on a shared drive. Especially if the guy owns more than one computer with any kind of networking set up. I have at least 3 systems running all the time, each has a shared folder - not so I can share my files with the world, but so I can share them with myself.
It would also apply to criminal activities - not something 'civil' that has to be handled as a civil suit.
--
...then THINK! again. |
|
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
·Suddenlink
·Cirtex Hosting
| Don't forget, in a civil suit, the burden of evidence is much lighter.
It also depends what they mean by a shared folder.
Obviously if they know it was in a shared folder, they took his computer already, to inspect it. If that is all they found, it sounds pretty lacking for proof anything took place at all.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Actually the burden of evidence is LOWER in a civil suit. In a criminal case, you have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, you have to simply prove it's more likely than not. Still, does the man having it in a shared folder make him guilty? I would hope not. That is then to say that everyone who has a shared folder on their computer is guilty, be it intentional or not. The question arises did this man INTEND to share it, even if it was in this folder. If they didn't catch him, then I don't think they can prove intent. It's tricky obviously and I'm sure the EFF and the RIAA lawyers will have a grand old time battling it out. Hopefully, the man prevails, and files a counter suit for a few million afterwards on the basis of a litigious lawsuit. Wouldn't that be funny if he PREVAILED. |
|
james1
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| said by jc100  :Actually the burden of evidence is LOWER in a civil suit. That is what gatorkram said, re-read it. In this context lighter = lower. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10 | Yep i misread it as higher. My mistake. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | That's funny, I misread it exactly the same way.
That being said, anyone know if you can be accused of civil intent? This not being a criminal case, I'm not entirely sure that you can be sued for something you intended to do. |
|
james1
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| I'm no lawyer, but I dont think you can sue based on intent, nor can you be proven innocent based on intent, in a civil court. Civil court's aren't about punishment of behaviour, they aren't SUPPOSED TO BE atleast, they're supposed to be a means to settle disputes and so on. Who owes who money, did A cause B to be unable to work and should A pay for B to live. |
|
