ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| I don't think the problem is with the law. I think it's with the application of said law.
By courts he means "civil" courts - which are inherently flawed, because it goes against the very spirit of the court system by assuming you're guilty and forcing you to prove why you're not. In the civil court, something like this automatically means you're liable, and it's not easy to prove you're not. That's the hook.
If this were to be applied as a criminal court case with financial repercussions, 7 of every 10 cases would be dismissed summarily, because the jury wouldn't allow such circular logic. There would have to be proof of a crime, not just circumstantial evidence of the intent of a crime without motive.
What the civil court says, using this law: If you (1) help someone else copy music, whether you knew you did it or not, (2) benefit from someone else's music copying whether you were aware or realized those benefits, (3) copied music whether or not you purchased it, or (4) used tools normally used for music sharing that pointed to your copied music library, regardless of whether said music was or was not legal, then you're automatically guilty.
Well hell, that logic basically paints 94% of the world as guilty, if you assume that Google Desktop or MSN Desktop Search fit under category 4 (since the searches can do web searches), that Windows Media Player fit under category 3, that borrowing a friend's computer and playing their music fit under category 2 (regardless of whether you knew their music was 'pirated'), or if the use of Tor fit under category 1 (if someone pirated through you as a relay).
Silly, isn't it? I'm sure I'm exaggerating, but that's the type of logic the civil laws allow. |
