Copyright Law

Aftedawn sums up MPAA brief: "MPAA to judge: We don't need no stinking proof"

By Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman

Excuse me folks, but I couldn't resist pointing out one of the best headlines I've ever seen, the one where Afterdawn.com summed up the MPAA amicus brief in Capitol v. Thomas in about as eloquent a fashion as anyone possibly could have:

MPAA to judge: We don't need no stinking proof

the MPAA is arguing in legal brief that plaintiffs should be allowed to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages with no proof that anyone has actually downloaded from a defendant's shared folder. The brief was filed by MPAA lawyers threw in in Jammie Thomas' appeal of the $222,000 judgement against her for copyright infringement. Judge Michael Davis asked for public comments on whether simply making files available is a violation of The Copyright Act and the MPAA took the opportunity to put in their 2 cents worth.

Actually 2 cents may be a little generous for the MPAA's contribution. Their argument basically goes something like this, it's difficult, or maybe impossible, to prove that people are actually downloading files from someone's shared folder so the courts should just assume files are shared with the intention of distributing them illegally and rule in favor of the plaintiff.

Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property

Full post as published by Recording Industry vs The People on June 23, 2008 (boomark / email).