MPAA to court: “Proof? We don’ need no stinkin’ proof!”

Gotta love the MPAA where you are considered guilty and they don’t think they should have to prove it:

The Motion Picture Association of America said Friday intellectual-property holders should have the right to collect damages, perhaps as much as $150,000 per copyright violation, without having to prove infringement.

“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.

Burden of proof? What’s that? Sounds like something only a commie pinko liberal would demand. Of course they’re guilty! We wouldn’t be suing them if they weren’t guilty. Now give me my money!

3 thoughts on “MPAA to court: “Proof? We don’ need no stinkin’ proof!”

  1. “Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances,”

    And there’s the kicker. They want to dole out punishment to anyone they deem “guilty” and make a buck off the top. They’re not interested in justice or intellectual property issues, and they’re certainly not interested in protecting the rights of their artists. They want money, and guilty until proven innocent if you stand in their way.

    Assholes.

  2. Actually, this is about whether or not MPAA and RIAA actually have to prove that material available to download, i.e. in a P2P share folder, was downloaded by members of the public. It seems that the law does require such proof, which is very difficult to attain, even though it’s pretty clear that there was intent to distribute.

    What amazed me more is that RIAA is claiming ‘$222,000 for “making available” 24 songs’. What proof do they have that they have actually suffered such damage as a consequence of those songs being made available?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.