MPAA Explains Why Proof Shouldn't Be Necessary In Copyright Infringement Cases
from the who-needs-evidence? dept
In the one high profile case that a judge ruled otherwise, the infamous Jammie Thomas case, the judge has now admitted that he may have made a "manifest error of law" and has asked parties to file briefs to give their thoughts on the making available issue. The MPAA has taken the opportunity to basically say that it's too difficult to find actual proof, and therefore they shouldn't have to do so:
"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances.... It is often very difficult, and in some cases, impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement."In other words, since it's difficult to get proof, we shouldn't have to provide proof. This is especially problematic given how flimsy the "proof" that the entertainment industry already relies on.