MPAA Sues Man Over Movies It Can't Find
from the burden-of-proof dept
One big point of contention concerning most of the lawsuits filed by the entertainment industry against file sharers concerns the burden of proof. The entertainment industry wants people to believe that all they need to show is that an unauthorized file was shared from a specific IP address which was assigned to a certain account paid for by whoever it is they're suing. Plenty of others question whether that's enough. There are an awful lot of variables in there that suggest the entertainment industry hasn't proved very much at all. First, they need proof that the file was actually infringing -- just looking at the name clearly is not enough and can lead to embarrassments for the industry. Second, they need proof that it was actually distributed (just offering it up for sharing might not be enough -- you can offer it, but if no one took it, have you actually distributed anything?). Third, there should be proof concerning who is actually at fault. An IP address doesn't identify anyone. It simply tells you the account. There could be multiple computers and multiple users. While the entertainment industry seems to think the owner of the account must be responsible, some courts appear skeptical. If the industry really wants to stop the people who are guilty of copyright infringement, it would seem that they would need to be able to prove all of those factors before the defendant needs to state a defense. Instead, they're going with their original plan, and it's leading to some problems. We've already covered some of the recent lawsuits, but the latest, as pointed out by Slashdot, is a man who is being sued by Paramount for $100,000 on charges he shared a movie over eDonkey. There's just one problem. Paramount checked out all of the guy's computers (four of them) and the movie doesn't appear to be on any of them. Paramount claims that the guy deleted the evidence -- but, once again, wouldn't it seem that the burden of proof should be on the movie industry to prove that, rather than baseless accusations? The guy, for his part, says he has no idea what happened and guesses that someone used his WiFi. He goes on to say this is a reason why you should secure your WiFi, but it's more accurate to say it's a reason why there's plenty of reasonable doubt as to why he might be guilty.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good Points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Points
Seriously, whoever has signed up for the acct is legally responsible for it's use, case closed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Points
it was shown that this is copy right infringment, specifically NOT theft. To get
back to your example, this is more like someone borrowed your car and did
some drive-by plagiarism. The cops wouldn't come looking for you, they'd
probably laugh at the person bringing the charge against you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Points
If they just saw your car, they may have enough to come talk to you, but they definitely don't have enough to prosecute. They know they'd lose that case in an instant.
Seriously, whoever has signed up for the acct is legally responsible for it's use, case closed.
Um. No. That's completely false, which was the point of this post. Owning the account does not make you responsible for its use, in the same way that being an ISP does not make you responsible for what your customers use it for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what if
He had many things on there including full movies, music, games, and applications. It seems someone managed to gain full access to his system.
I know he didn't put those files there or download them because he is pretty much computer iliterate and only uses his system for chatting and e-mail with the rest of the family.
It's up to the RIAA (or any other group) to prove I did it. In this case, they can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
isn't an ip address is like a phone number?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]