24 Jun 2008
An attorney for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has suggested that the organisation should not have to provide proof of piracy in future trials.
MPAA attorney Marie L. van Uitert wrote in a filing in the case of Capitol Records versus Jammie Thomas (PDF) that the plaintiff should not have to provide evidence as it is often difficult to collect.
Thomas is accused of making 24 songs available to downloaders and is being sued for up to $150,000 per song.
"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances," said van Uitert.
"It is often very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise.
"Understandably, copyright infringers typically do not keep records of their infringement."
Thomas has already been fined $220,000 for copyright infringement after the judge in the original case instructed the jury to accept the argument that storing songs in a shared folder was sufficient evidence of piracy.
The judge has since admitted that he may have made a mistake and has asked for more information.
"The specious 'making available' argument threatens to brand people as thieves when the evidence is not really there," said Michael Kwun, senior intellectual property attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"We are pleased that the judge is taking a second look at this critical question."
Thomas's legal team is claiming that there is no case to answer as there is no evidence that anyone actually downloaded the music. The judge is now deciding whether or not to allow her leave to appeal.
The case was the first piracy action for music file sharing to come to trial. The win was seen as a major victory for media companies that would make future prosecutions a lot easier.
Latest stories from Law
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Hands on with the highly anticipated Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich hybrid tablet
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
Salesforce.com Consultants, both Functional or Technical...
Enterprise Data Architect required by reputable Banking...
SSIS, SSAS, MDX, OLAP, OLTP, Data Warehousing, Data Modelling...
Specialist IT service provider is looking to recruit...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
"Does not need proof"?? So much for the free world!
This is really scary.. Basically what the attorney is saying is "I can't prove you're guilty, but I know you are and my word should be good enough because I work for the MPAA, and we NEVER get things wrong.." Holy ****... So much for free speech, so much for the burden of proof, if the MPAA manage to win this argument, then the US is going to have its laws created by private companies, not the elected government.. I feel so sorry for people living in the US these days.. Thank god I live in Europe!
Posted by: Jon 24 Jun 2008
MPAA does need proof
MPAA's attorney needs to do a course in logic. How can you say there has been a 'massive copyright infringement' when you have no proof it has taken place. The movie industry makes enough money from films that they 'puff' to high heaven that prove to be rubbish when you go and see the things. They should be flattered that people have such high regard for their work that they want to copy it.
Posted by: Charles Heaven 24 Jun 2008