Saturday, June 21, 2008

Evidence? That's for little people, says MPAA

In a submission in the Jammie Thomas case, the MPAA has suggested to the judge that they don't really need to prove anything:

"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.

"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 infringement," van Uitert wrote on behalf of the movie studios, a position shared with the Recording Industry Association of America, which sued Thomas, the single mother of two.

It is impossible to prove we were damaged, so we should not have to prove that any copyright theft took place. It's wonderful logic and we look forward to this forming a cornerstone of law in future. After all, it's difficult to prove that Marie van Uitert has been brainwashing my cat in order to turn it into a killing machine, but - hey - that need not be a problem any more, need it?


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's going to set a great precedent for my forthcoming courtcase Anonymous Blog Commenter versus MPAA where I shall not need proof that every member of the MPAA sexually assaulted me. Yup they did. oh you don't believe me? Well that doesn't matter, it's not like I need proof.

duckie said...

Hmmm, I think you'll find, anonymous, that your point was already made rather more expertly above. But thinking about it, trying to sue an anonymous blog commenter is exactly the kind of thing the MPAA would pointlessly do, so maybe you're more on the money than you know.

Post a Comment

As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.