MPAA: Evidence? Who Needs Evidence?
Film industry reacts to RIAA case development...
I've recently highlighted several reports
showing that the RIAA's method of identifying and suing P2P users is painfully inaccurate. This was further illuminated by the recent case of Jammie Thomas
, a Minnesota woman who was originally ordered to pay $220,000 for making files available, but may now see a new trial. Why? Because the Judge has decided that actually showing evidence of a crime
might be a good idea. Wired's Threat Level blog
notes that in the MPAA's opinion, they should be able to collect as much as $150,000 in damages from individuals without evidence of a crime. Says the MPAA:
"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances," MPAA attorney Marie L. van Uitert wrote Friday to the federal judge overseeing the Jammie Thomas trial."
98 comments .. click to read
|reply to swhx7 |
Re: bah who needs a fair trial
Laws are made to be broken. Obviously, celebrities, politicians, police, and anyone of power need not apply. For the rest of us, justice is only as blind as your pocket book.
|reply to nasadude |
That's really a good point. If Congress effectively pardons big corporations for grossly illegal conduct, how can anyone be expected to respect laws - especially those designed to protect profits of corporations?
Rule of law must be universal, otherwise it is abandoned and government has no legitimacy.