how-to block ads
|reply to urbanriot |
Re: [BC] Bill C-11
said by urbanriot: said by tlhIngan:
Or, if you get a notice, go out and buy them on DVD or Blu-Ray (if you downloaded the DVD or high-def version). Buy used from those used media stores.
Just to advise people thinking they can do this, they can't. The court of law refers to receipts to prove ownership. If you don't have a receipt, you don't own the item. It doesn't matter if you're holding it in your hands.
Edit: and oh, yea, the date of the receipt needs to be before the allegations so you can't show a current day receipt.
Obviously you don't shop at the good used media places whose receipts don't really say much other than "DVD - $3.99". Plus, if we take a movie like Hurt Locker - I'm fairly certain the courts will excuse the lack of receipts because well, which reasonable person would have a receipt from 4 years ago?! And I can tell you that most people would've thrown away their receipts even if they just bought the movie. We're talking about a $20-30 movie here. Pay in cash and Future Shop can't link the transaction to you, either, just one of the many people who bought that DVD/Blu-Ray/game/etc on that day and paid in cash (yes, there are plenty of people who buy in cash). Receipts, when they exist, prove ownership. When they don't, doesn't mean anything (you could've traded it with your friends, got it as a gift, etc). I'm sure the courts would love to rule that receiving a Christmas present doesn't mean you own it because you didn't ask the giver for a receipt.
Of course, if you're downloading a movie before it's DVD release (eww, cam rip), then it obviously won't help.
And when you think about C-11, since you can't break a digital lock, downloading IS the only answer if you want to watch that blu-ray on your phone or something (other than digital copy, but you can find movies without them).
said by tlhIngan:
Obviously you don't shop at the good used media places whose receipts don't really say much other than "DVD - $3.99".
No, instead I have experience in the court of law concerning piracy.
said by tlhIngan:
Plus, if we take a movie like Hurt Locker - I'm fairly certain the courts will excuse the lack of receipts because well, which reasonable person would have a receipt from 4 years ago?!
Exactly. Welcome to the unfair world of unjust damages in the court of law. No receipt? You don't own it. Receipt? What's the date? No date, you can't prove you owned this at the time of the alleged crime.
Saying you cleared out old receipts for tax reasons or you simply don't keep them, that means you can't prove it.
said by tlhIngan:
I'm sure the courts would love to rule that receiving a Christmas present doesn't mean you own it because you didn't ask the giver for a receipt.
I haven't heard of that situation but I'd love to hear of someone successfully using that one. I have a feeling it would cost you more than its worth to try and involve someone else to prove they purchased you a Christmas gift that a team of high priced lawyers allege you stole.
Every day logic won't work in the court of law when it concerns software piracy, all your points are smoke and mirrors that are trumped by a legal set of logic that's hard for anyone to wrap their head around. It's unfair and it's unjust, but that's the way it is.
Businesses make claims they disposed of software licensing receipts 6 years ago because of tax reasons... oh, well, that was stupid because you threw out your proof of ownership.
The truth is as crazy as it sounds.
Copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a criminal offense. In a civil trial, the standard of proof is "on the balance of probability" (i.e., > 50% likely), rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt". That standard cuts both ways. The claimant doesn't have to prove every little detail of their case with incontrovertible proof, they just have to establish that it's more likely than not that the defendant did infringe copyright. On the other hand the defendant doesn't need solid evidence for every part of their defence if they can convince a judge that it's believable and likely to be true.
said by AJ102:
Copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a criminal offense.
Correct. And what was mentioned previously sounds like 'plenty of doubt' and doesn't come even close to holding any water concerning other forms of piracy. The judges I've encountered have sifted through what they basically deem as BS, points that every day people would argue are plausible, and say "you don't have proof" in more plain words.
Perhaps you have different, more people-friendly experiences in court than I have but concerning software piracy, what I've seen are binary situations of proof or zero proof. Invoices with proper dates is proof, everything else is zero proof, case closed, you lose.
Again, I hope the legal firms representing those alleging infringements are not the same as those representing software companies. Since the costs involved concerning media infringement are considerably less, perhaps more people-friendly explanations can be provided by human beings to a nicer, kinder judge... I truthfully can't say, I haven't participated in a media-centric case.