Digital_Freedom wrote:A couple years ago I read something about the RIAA using prints. Some kind of technology in which they look at a print of the file that is supposed to tell them if it's a real copyright offense. I also read that they didnt have to actually download the file if the print matched.
I cant recall the exact term used, but Im pretty sure it had the word "print" within it.
KoolKat wrote:the phrases, burden of proof and beyond a shadow of a doubt pop into my head when i hear about these lawsuits. why is it these people have to prove they didnt download these songs the burden of proof falls on the plantiff and if u have ever sat on a jury trial u know that there is the beyond a shadow of a doubt deal.
can they prove u never owned the 8 track or album or tape or cd? legally u are allowed one backup copy of all your digital media from what i understand.
Fartingbob wrote:Yes, but they arent being sued for downloading a digital copy. They get sued for distributing (uploading) copyrighted material, and that is totally different.
RayBeckerman wrote:Fartingbob wrote:Yes, but they arent being sued for downloading a digital copy. They get sued for distributing (uploading) copyrighted material, and that is totally different.
Correct. In Lindor when asked what was the evidentiary basis for the lawsuit they responded that it was their investigator going online and seeing that that user was making certain song files available. Then, they said, they confirmed their evidence by downloading "perfect digital copies" of the song files. http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm#UMG_v_Lindor (Reply affidavit of Morlan Ty Rogers, Exhibits A & B).
When asked to produce the digital song files they produced only eleven (11). Now they are saying they want to be able to prove twenty seven (27) other songs were being made available but can't produce the "perfect digital copies".
Thomas Davie wrote:My sense of entitlement comes from the fact that I am already paying a levy on blank media in order to compensate the artists from which I am supposedly stealing 'prior to the actual act'. Additionally, my sense of entitlement derives from my Canadian Supreme Court which says I can download.
There is no confusion on my part.
ShawnSpree wrote:Another thing is, can the RIAA give proof that someone actually downloaded it from you, it reside on your pc. May been in your shared folder, and they can do a check to see if the song matches, but unless they download from you. Then there is no reasonable ground to stand on.
BasicTek wrote:They can't prove copyright infrindgement except that they themselves are able to infrindge on their own product.
darkened wrote:Not one single case has a person even been proven to have been distributing copyright files. And i still do not believe it has been proven in court that simply making files available counts as copyright infringement.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests