 tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
1 edit | reply to karlmarx
Re: Just Die said by karlmarx:No, the RIAA is trying to say that by DOING it, he committed a crime. THERE IS NO CRIME IF NO-ONE DOWNLOADS IT. That is what the EFF is saying. The RIAA DIDN'T download any songs from him, they just got a list of songs. He OWNED the SONGS. If the RIAA had gotten PROOF that other people were downloading, then they would have a case. As it is, they are attempting to argue the mere FACT that he ripped the songs to his hard drive, he committed a crime. No proof of downloads, no foul. Simple as that. All they gotta do is show INTENT. Same argument used many times in court.. "assault with INTENT to kill". "Possession with INTENT to distribute". The argument would be something like "John Doe had 200gb's of music on his PC in a SHARED folder and running some P2P software". Don't think it would be too hard to provde intent but I hope he gets some judge with a pair that tells the RIAA to FO.. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by tc1uscg:All they gotta do is show INTENT. Same argument used many times in court.. "assault with INTENT to kill". "Possession with INTENT to distribute". In conjunction with an overt act, you can usually prove intent. In the absence of an overt act, you can't prove intent.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
| reply to tc1uscg
Harder than you think.
In criminal trials, proving intent is important because the litmus test is "beyond reasonable doubt". If you can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, no crime has been committed. That was the problem with OJ's first trial - the prosecution was such a mess tha they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt.
In civil cases, intent is not required. The plaintiff piles up their evidence, the defendant piles up THEIR evidence, and the judge/jury sees who has more. Beyond reasonable doubt is not required, nor is intent; the burden of proof is instead 'preponderance of evidence'. |
|
