It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by danx
 

Boy, you just can't help yourself, can you.
Please stop derailing this thread. If you want to discuss this further then please start a new thread and I will be more than happy to show you how wrong and illogical your thoughts are.




posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


I am really curious about how they plan to enforce this outside of the US. How are they going to get the right people? When I travel I always piggyback on someone else's wireles. I know my ISP is one of the ones in Canada that has said they refuse to report it's customers usage. Both of those make it really hard for them to find out just what I do. If my ISP decided to change their rules I will soon be showing up as some random computer in some third world country. This whole thing is going to end like the search for bigfoot.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Technically speaking, as these are civil suits not criminal proceedings, the MPAA has never needed "proof" nor does "innocent until proven guilty" have any bearing here. In a civil case all you need is a preponderance of the evidence. Not to mention, the burden of going forward with a civil trial is extremely low compared even with a preponderance. Up to now, barely anyone has made it past the burden of going forward before cutting a deal with the MPAA or RIAA. This is why they suddenly are swinging their balls around like they're bulletproof. All it will take is one jury trial in which the jury says not just no, but "Hell no!" and orders the MPAA or RIAA to pay damages to the defendant for their troubles having to defend themselves against a ridiculous suit for this nonsense to stop. Of course it would also be very nice if Congress would jump into action like they did to protect the mega corporations from frivilous suits and put a cap on the amount anyone can be charged with in civil court as an individual.

For the record, the civil court system in this country is even more rife with bullcrap and a lack of integrity than the criminal justice system is. O.J. Simpson is a perfect example of this... a victim of double jeopardy and a witch hunt.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
More and more legitimate programs are starting to use the "torrent" model of transmission. A lot of game companies, skype as well as others. I don't think there is any way that they can come close to getting this kind of BS passed. When the illegal blends in with the legal it starts to become difficult to get rid of the illegal as it would harm the legal users as well.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by 123space

Yeah, but terrorists don't have U.S. citizen rights.
So you call them terrorist because they are not us citizen

Who do you think is in Gitmo? People on vacation?
They were caught on the battlefield killing U.S. soldiers and allied forces, so yeah, they are terrorists.
Please stop derailing this thread.


So like if U.S soldiers are caught on the battlefield by them because the U.S soldiers were killing them does that mean you have the same outlook? Do the U.S soldiers no longer have rights?

After all they were KILLING people to... Sides don't mean squat in a war zone, Only the deaths of neutrals matter, And the US has killed more neutrals then the enemy could dream of, And just a lil FYI you should pull your head out of your nether region and understand the mighty U.S isn't the savior of the world nor is everything it does right, nor are its battles any more just then that of the enemies.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Now as far as this thread is concerned, How exactly do they get proof?
I mean what with open networks and such how can they "prove" anything unless a person is stupid enough to allow them into their home and search through their PC...



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
So like if U.S soldiers are caught on the battlefield by them because the U.S soldiers were killing them does that mean you have the same outlook?

Umm....that has happened and look at the outcome. They behead them, burn them and hand them from bridges. What's your point?


This is not the place for this discussion. Please stop derailing this thread.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

This is not the place for this discussion. Please stop derailing this thread.


I don't mean to be the one to point out the obvious here, but you have been actively derailing this thread since post #1. And the rest you here aren't helping. Where are the mods when you need them?

[edit on 23-6-2008 by drwizardphd]

[edit on 23-6-2008 by drwizardphd]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
This thread has zero to do with terrorist, detainees, Gitmo, or George Bush....

All these sharp conspiracy minded people around here and no one sees the big picture.

Tie this original thread into the internet metering that some ISP's are wanting to use. You find the movies and music torrents real quick.

go back to bickering about off topic crap now....



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
This is not the place for this discussion. Please stop derailing this thread.


First don't even try and play that game, You know very well who derailed this thread and it wasn't the dude you replied to nor myself, He made a remark regarding rights and you opened up the dialog which derailed the thread, And of course when people engage your BS its them who derailed it and not you right?

Bottom line is you derailed the thread knowing full well the original topic had nothing to do with your skewed political opinion, And your using the basis of this thread as protection so you can get your little comments in without anyone calling you out on the crap you spew.

Give it a rest.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by C0le]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


You could always send them a bill for stupidity. I think the going rate is $5US for each infraction.

If you are deaf or blind add an extra $27.50US.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd
I don't mean to be the one to point out the obvious here, but you have been actively derailing this thread since post #1.

Really? How is that when I was only responding to the 2nd post by danx who said, "Tell that to the people in Guantanamo!".

So please, before you start making inaccurate accussations, please get your facts straight or stop making 'obvious' statements.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
First don't even try and play that game, You know very well who derailed this thread and it wasn't the dude you replied to nor myself, He made a remark regarding rights

You seem like the one playing games by being disingenuous.
Sorry, I only replied to danx. How is it you are blaming me and not him. Hmmm.....how do the detainees at Gitmo equate somehow to the MPAA? So take your faux outrage somewhere else and blame your friend danx.


Please, give it a rest and try and stop yourself.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
In defense of WhatTheory, the original Gitmo comment reeked of being an ass. Typically around here, anytime anything even remotely to do with the justice system comes up someone tries that tired old bait tactic. The majorly ironic thing is, the comment was made as a reply to the OP's reference to innocent until proven guilty which doesn't even have any bearing on this subject. Innocent until proven guilty is a criminal court concept whereas this is a civil court matter. The incredibly astonishing thing here is how the founding fathers dropped the ball by not redicrecting this country away from England's common law civil court system, which is why we have cases like this today. Had they spent even a fraction as much time on laying some groundrules for civil proceedings as they did for criminal proceedings, we'd be at the worst seeing actual, defensible real damages ordered paid to the record companies, instead of the nonsense we now have. For example, if you're found with 100 illegal MP3s on your PC, a judgement of a buck fifty or whatever a single MP3 costs on average multiplied by the number found on your PC = a $150 judgement paid to the RIAA.

I can tell you right now, if the system relied on common sense like that, we'd see scarcely any of these frivilous lawsuits with the exception being mass reproducers/illegal sellers of copied DVDs, CDs, and software. Those cases would fall under corporate governance laws since money was changing hands for illegal goods and would, therefore, be subject to much harsher fines and penalties. Given that, if they did decide to go after John Q. Public for illegally copied songs or media, I think anyone in their right mind would have a hard time arguing that a fine consisting of no more than what would have been paid to legally obtain the media in question, plus a modest base fine (say $200) would at least be a fair and just penalty. With the current system of charging thousands of dollars per infraction and trying to justify it by saying it's what the recording industry loses on every pirated item, all it is doing is turning the average American wholeheartedly against them because we see them being greedy bastards.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by die_another_day


So technically, anyone that can access the internet would be guilty under their method of detection?

This is totally destroying the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

blog.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



Innocent until proven guilty? I don't know if you've been to any court cases, but most of the time you must prove your innocence rather than be proven guilty



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xilvius

Originally posted by die_another_day


So technically, anyone that can access the internet would be guilty under their method of detection?

This is totally destroying the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

blog.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



Innocent until proven guilty? I don't know if you've been to any court cases, but most of the time you must prove your innocence rather than be proven guilty


I think I'm right on this one man, my stats teacher taught us about the null hypothesis (innocent) being true until rejected (found guilty) with sufficient evidence.



Overall, I think that they might put this into practice to scare people even more. The single mother who was fined for 240k was not a strong enough message to the torrent users.

I really think that without Americans dumping billions of dollars into the entertainment industry, the Hollywood wouldn't have the world's greatest movies.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I dont event remember what this thread was supposed to be about now. I read something about the MPAA sending terrorist to Gitmo for illegally downloading 50 Cent albums. Is that about right??????



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Is P2P the same as Direct Connects?

There are hundreds of DCs that will not let you share files
unless you join with a few gigs of sharing files.

For the law to join means they would violate the law.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by danx
Tell that to the people in Guantanamo!

Boy, you just can't stay on the topic at hand.

Yes, I will tell them that since they are not U.S. citizens therefore don't have the rights provided under the Constitution. Geesh!


But they are human just like you and your family. Remember that.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by 123space

Yeah, but terrorists don't have U.S. citizen rights.
So you call them terrorist because they are not us citizen

Who do you think is in Gitmo? People on vacation?
They were caught on the battlefield killing U.S. soldiers and allied forces, so yeah, they are terrorists.
Please stop derailing this thread.


It is well known that many are in there for no real reason, some have been released after a long time, because obviously they are there for doing nothing wrong.

I don't know where you got the caught on the battlefield killing soldiers, they would be dead if they were.

I would love to see you talk about rights if you were the one inside there hahaha.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join