View Single Post
Old 03-12-2010, 01:08 PM   #28
Bobblehead
Franchise Player
 
Bobblehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in your blind spot.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredr123 View Post
These aren't criminal prosecutions, though. These are civil suits for damages. The standard to meet isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" but the lower "balance of probabilities". A judge or jury could be convinced it was probably you sitting at the keyboard downloading the infringing materials though the plaintiff is not able to conclusively prove it was you beyond a reasonable doubt.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the new legislation aimed at preventing internet crimes and illegal downloading don't incorporate changes to make the person to whom the IP or MAC address is registered liable. Somewhat analogous to getting a registered owner ticket for speeding.
But then the penalties need to better reflect the uncertainty.

Even in the Thomas case, a subsequent judge drastically lowered the judgment from over $2 million to $54,000. And now the RIAA have offered Thomas a $25,000 settlement if they can drop that judge's decision (which she has denied).

So even though they have Thomas dead to rights, there is still so much wrangling going on that there is a lot of uncertainty.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote