digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at torrentfreak.com

MPAA Says It Doesn’t Need Evidence to Convict Pirates

torrentfreak.com — Only a few weeks ago, a University of Washington study showed showed how inaccurate the MPAA and RIAA ’s evidence gathering techniques are. Now, instead of improving their pirate chasing tactics, the MPAA simply claims they don’t need any evidence to bankrupt “alleged” copyright infringers.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Weirdcore, on 06/21/2008, -3/+275What makes them so special?
    • compu73rg33k, on 06/21/2008, -1/+142They have the money it takes to get politicians elected.
    • fr3ddie, on 06/21/2008, -6/+82they suck a mean judge *****.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 06/21/2008, -3/+27They should probably find nicer judges.
    • azbmr, on 06/21/2008, -3/+37They are just taking cues from the US Federal Government. We'll just put people we *think* might be bad in Guantanamo. Why not?
    • PatNolan, on 06/21/2008, -1/+23You could be special too if you had the bucks to buy a few senators.
    • Hangly, on 06/21/2008, -2/+14They operate above the law. Someone needs to alert Knight Rider.
      • Rammy912, on 06/22/2008, -6/+1***** Knight Rider. Someone needs to alert Chuck Norris.
        • Hangly, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4[opening narration]
          "Knight Rider, a shadowy flight into the dangerous world of a man who does not exist. Michael Knight, a young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law."

          I'm old :(
      • grizzlybrice, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2***** Chuck Norris. Someone needs to alert the Ghostbusters.
    • scimitar91, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7We just need to start stealing more and paying for less. If they had less money, they wouldn't be able to do this *****. Every dollar you pay to a major record company is a vote for tyranny.
    • Oniobn, on 06/22/2008, -2/+0As much as it sucks, they don't have to have that evidence. In a civil case, the MPAA only has to convince jury/judge that the accused did break the copyright. They don't have to have that concrete evidence.
      • snatchmstr, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3They damn well should have to if they are going to destroy somebody's life. ***** extortionists.
        • Ratteler, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1You mean ***** Terrorists.
          Using fear to get your way over a large number of people is called Terrorism.

          Extortion is simple a tool to cause fear in this case.
    • runningfire, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0link to UW's research:

      http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/
  • socivitus, on 06/21/2008, -5/+214This is like the Patriot Act of the movie industry. (You don't have to be a "terrorist" for us to bug your phones and computer). Neither do you have to be a pirate for the MPAA to charge you as one.
    • HoboMaster, on 06/21/2008, -0/+21Except that the MPAA has no actual power, and the judge is going to throw that out. The judge was going to get rid of the case because of the lack of evidence, but the MPAA thinks that saying "we don't need evidence" is going to suddenly change his mind? Yeah, right. It's just the MPAA engaging in some wishful thinking.
      • RoccoMcTaco, on 06/21/2008, -0/+8I think so. It seems like the RIAA. They get high'n'mighty, then desaparate, then cave. No one is taking them seriously anymore.
        Though I think with the MPAA it's more complicated; along the lines of more conservative christian bureaucrats tied to politicians than record execs, labels and bands tied to the RIAA.
        I could be ignorant on that; feel free to school me.
    • grumpyrain, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5There is a big difference with being charged and being convicted. Being convicted means being found guilty. Being charged simply means being accused (although evidence should be on hand before one is accused also).
    • sporg, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4In some cases they don't need much evidence because people are foolish enough to reply to their baiting letters thus revealing your identity without them having to get a proper warrant, just because your ISP forwarded it to you does not mean they revealed your name or any information to the people threatening you. I have said it a hundred times and I will say it again. If you get a threatening letter do not respond to them, if you think its a credible threat seek legal council. Do not call any 1-800-IM-GUILTY number that they provide and don't talk to anyone about it except your lawyer.
  • AsSubtleAsABrik, on 06/21/2008, -4/+321And I don't need evidence that you're a bunch of douchebags.
    • carpespasm, on 06/21/2008, -0/+115though massive amounts of it is readily and easily found.
    • DeskFlyer, on 06/21/2008, -0/+84Oh we have plenty of evidence to back that up.
    • taffyhealscrowd, on 06/21/2008, -23/+6Are you guys talking about diggers, or the MPAA?
  • say592, on 06/21/2008, -5/+345***** the MPAA!

    But no, seriously, they are bad.
    • danomagnum, on 06/21/2008, -10/+1... mmmkay
    • pigfister, on 06/21/2008, -0/+26let ppl know who they are.

      The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

      The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

      The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!

      The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
    • dharcha1, on 06/22/2008, -1/+7...as i download 6 weeks worth of music...

      ***** em.
    • bmw036, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2We need to stop saying F the MPAA (or RIAA for that matter) and look at who they really are. These are the corporations that make up the MPAA, be mad at them.
      http://www.mpaa.org/AboutUsMembers.asp
      Paramount Pictures Corporation;
      Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.;
      Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation;
      Universal City Studios LLLP;
      Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; and
      Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
  • iPsyko, on 06/21/2008, -8/+37Ass-m-m-munches.
  • Jako, on 06/21/2008, -44/+9just like we don't need proof to know that OJ is guilty and that michael jackson is a pedophile.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 06/21/2008, -1/+21But there was at least some proof provided in those cases.
  • Oxygen, on 06/21/2008, -2/+131I can tell he's guilty just by looking at him...
    • haydesigner, on 06/21/2008, -0/+13MPAA: "I don't know what guilty is, but I know it when I see it!

      Wait, you mean we *do* what guilty is? And there are laws to spell it out? When did that happen?"
    • fuzzybeard, on 06/21/2008, -0/+12Look at those shifty eyes, that low criminal brow...
    • RoflCoptah, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7there's an aura of pure copyright infringement evil surrounding him...
  • gta3uzi, on 06/21/2008, -2/+54Bastards.
  • Biohazard6601, on 06/21/2008, -27/+7OH, siding with George Bush now are we? this will screw your campaign as bad as it will screw Mccain's
  • Rudegar, on 06/21/2008, -1/+108are they allowed to waterboard suspected pirate too ? :O
    • fr3ddie, on 06/21/2008, -0/+44Tell us where you downloaded your mp3's and we'll stop.
    • btschul, on 06/21/2008, -7/+4No, just take them out back and shoot em' in the head (if the mpaa had their way, anyway)
    • Mo0man, on 06/21/2008, -0/+11Shooting people in the back of the head doesn't give them money. Why the hell would they bother with that?
    • byleth, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3SUSPECTED pirate? He's a pirate because We say so!
    • jtinz, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0It is too early to comment on that bill.
  • timsline, on 06/21/2008, -0/+298Any Judge who doesn't laugh at this attempt by the MPAA should have his bank accounts checked.
    • Ajajadude, on 06/21/2008, -0/+70And be disbarred.
    • fuzzybeard, on 06/21/2008, -0/+11Which would be promptly quashed by some obscure clause of the DMCA or "Patriot" Act.

      Where's Patrick Henry when you *really* need him?
  • mattearle, on 06/21/2008, -2/+84The only reason they can get away with this is because we (all the people that hate the MPAA/RIAA) can never get organized to all donate money to the same cause, hire lawyers and lobbyists and fight them using the same tactics they use, which are necessary in this day and age. Oh and the people elected to "represent us" literally don't care about us at all so we cannot rely on them to organize something like this.

    *****.
    • bmystry, on 06/21/2008, -0/+21Dude that's a great idea! Someone should start the anti-mpaa lobby group.
    • WoollyMittens, on 06/21/2008, -0/+20An organized group of anti-MPAA activists would quickly be labeled an illegal organization promoting crime.
      • kevro, on 06/21/2008, -0/+12not if you stick up for consumers rights and fair use. Point out the illegality of there harassment of the innocent as well.
    • insinuate, on 06/21/2008, -0/+7My party is the People Who Hate People Party...but we can never seem to organize a meeting...-Bill Hicks
    • fuzzybeard, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6Maybe the time has come for more, shall we say, *direct* action?
    • jwillis11, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3www.eff.org
  • DavidThaGnome, on 06/21/2008, -3/+7Well this should end well........
  • Nerys, on 06/21/2008, -4/+20Whats to stop people from simply ignoring them. Not ignoring a summons (there is a difference between ignoring the RIAA and ignoring the COURTS) goto court no lawyer and simply declare you do not recognize the RIAA's suit. What are they going to do? put you in jail?
    • mCanada, on 06/21/2008, -0/+23Ummm here's how that plays. :
      you: I don't recognize you suit!@
      (mpaa): Excellent eat *****!
      Judge: 200,000 in damages for 3 Rick Astley mp3's in your shared folder.
      Good day.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 06/21/2008, -0/+11Actually, it would be $450,000 on top of the embarrassment of being taken to court over 3 Rick Astley songs. If you're going to get royally *****, you might as well download something good...
      • mCanada, on 06/21/2008, -0/+10point taken, but if I'm going ***** up , I think there would be some irony in getting the ultimate Rick Roll.
    • kreneskyp, on 06/21/2008, -0/+9ignoring the suit will almost certainly cause you to lose.

      you can also ignore any civil judgment BUT in most states a judge can order your wages garnished or liens put on your property (cars, houses, etc). it varies what and how much they can take in each state.
    • sparrowkc, on 06/21/2008, -2/+10For a second I read that as "or lions put on your property"

      Scare tactics as usual...
      • TheInimitable, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2That's ten times scarier than the suit itself.

        Imagine! Just three lions and it's THIRTY times scarier!
    • caramba420, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2It's called a "summary judgment." By not showing up to defend yourself, you are found liable. Then, as kreneskyp says, bad things will happen.
    • cliffski, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1lol. yes.
      you cretin
  • orangefly, on 06/21/2008, -11/+3ash:come get some....
  • altryan, on 06/21/2008, -1/+37Unfortunately the South Park episode where the children get raided by the Feds for downloading a song isn't too far off. I suspect the MPAA will soon have undercover agents working sting operations and Dateline will have to switch gears from "To Catch a Predator" to "To Catch a Pirate".

    I see no problems with this. The law does not apply to large corporations. DUH!
    • btschul, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5Just....Just take a seat right over there.
      Oh *****...Chris Hansen!?!? *Bang*
    • RoflCoptah, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2gaarrr they'll never catch me and me crew!
  • peestandingup, on 06/21/2008, -1/+98Isnt this against the basic legal rights of accused criminals?? Aren't you "innocent until proven guilty" in any court of law?? How the ***** are they gonna legally convict people with no evidence. Its basically the basis of our whole damn legal system.
    • ExRe, on 06/21/2008, -4/+29That is the way it used to be.

      Then the supreme court comes along and says those detained without trial in Gitmo can have the right to a trial and everybody ***** goes insane saying we are letting "terrorists" free. I hop every one of those who say stupid ***** like that get picked up by Blackwater and transported to Gitmo without trial.
    • Tony6785, on 06/21/2008, -0/+35Innocent until proven guilty doesn't do jack in a civil court.

      Innocent or not, it'll cost you a ***** ton to defend yourself.
    • Nin10dude, on 06/21/2008, -0/+10Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the article, but this is just some crap coming from the MPAA. The MPAA doesn't have much control over whether or not someone is actually convicted... if there's no evidence, I'd hope our courts would be intelligent enough to not charge anyone.
      • pentalive, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4But it still costs $$$ to defend yourself.

        In what states can you counter sue for you legal costs if they loose?
      • gurellia53, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1adding to what pentalive said, in a lot of cases, it costs less to pay their fine than go to court... plus if you go to court, it takes time that people would can't afford to lose (especially the college students that they target)... and if you go to court, there's a chance you'll lose.


        with that said...***** the MPAA
    • kreneskyp, on 06/21/2008, -0/+8it does violate that concept.

      their whole strategy is to ensure you go bankrupt either paying them or paying a lawyer. either outcome is considered a success. so no they don't actually need evidence. they just need a good assumption that you might be guilty.
      • peestandingup, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2I'd personally never go to trial in the first place for some ***** like this. They'd have to comb the earth for my ass to get a damn cent.
        • Cyber_Akuma, on 06/22/2008, -2/+0It's nice to think you can just go "***** you" to some giant corporation and they can't do a thing about it but the real world dosen't work that way.
  • tucsonsun13, on 06/21/2008, -6/+11They watched their beloved commander-in-chief successfully pull the same BS in Abu GhaR-EB, Gitmo, and with the rampant NSA surveillance that has rightfully stirred much controversy in Washington. Nobody thinks they're responsible for gathering actual evidence or warrants anymore. Had enough America? This one certainly has.
    • aschmack, on 06/21/2008, -10/+2Arguments are much more credible when you take the time to spell correctly, especially when your sarcastic way of spelling it is the same amount of letters as the real thing.
    • Zarchon, on 06/21/2008, -3/+2Yes, because Bush is responsible for all the evil in the world. That's sarcasm for you on the left who actually think that statement is true. I guess we can then blame Clinton for all the unwed pregnancies? I hate people like you. No truly, I HATE people like you. You ARE the problem with America. I am sorry that I honestly believe that the left and their socialistic goals will be the down fall of America. I am sorry if that offends any of you but it is truly how I feel.

      For the record, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about America. When there were two super powers other countries had to choose sides, so we had friends. Now that the USSR is gone, it is the goal of the rest of the world to bring down that last super power. The people on the left are helping them to accomplish that. The left has no Patriotism. My country, right or wrong! I will work to fix things within my country but I will never put my country second. I will always put America ahead of other countries.
      Again, sorry if that offends you on the left so much. I hate that you think putting your own country down, being against your country at every turn, somehow makes you superior. Just leave already.
      • ivand67, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1"The left has no Patriotism. My country, right or wrong! I will work to fix things within my country but I will never put my country second. I will always put America ahead of other countries."

        That's not patriotism (and why spell that with a capital letter you douche?), that's bigotry and ignorance.

        Intelligent people are not afraid to put their own country down when they see that it's down. The reason they do it is because they want other people to realize what's going on. Have fun voting for McCain and watching Obama win.
  • alpha88, on 06/21/2008, -0/+48The *****? I have a shared folder on my computer, but my P2P program has sharing turned off. That's hardly evidence.

    What a bunch of *****.
    • djAnakin, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6Yup. I'm one of those douchebags who doesn't share a thing. I only download.
  • trumpcard, on 06/21/2008, -1/+27So they have power to send Bush to jail.
  • skews13, on 06/21/2008, -1/+17wrong, mpaa asswipes. you still have to prove your case by a preponderance of the evidence, just like everybody else in civil court, and if that evidence doesn't tip the scales in your favor. you lose.
    • snatchmstr, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Are you saying that THEY do not have to prove you did something wrong but rather YOU have to prove you didn't?
  • br0pbr0p, on 06/21/2008, -1/+17They never cease to amaze us with their legal tactics. These lawyers should be disbarred like that other guy going after GTA.
  • wannapiece, on 06/21/2008, -1/+13They don't have to take us to court either, they just come to your home with two guys named Vinny and Tommy and a couple baseball bats huh?
    • btschul, on 06/21/2008, -3/+2God Bless the 2nd amendment, eh
      • theonlywizdum, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2the second amendment gives you the right to bash peoples face's in with baseball bats? ***** YEAH
  • thegodfaza, on 06/21/2008, -2/+15Evidence, who needs it. Not the MPAA.
    • MattBot5000, on 06/21/2008, -3/+2Demotivational poster, anyone?
      • WoollyMittens, on 06/21/2008, -7/+4those died with lol-cats... please let it rest.
    • Cyber_Akuma, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0Evidence, huh, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

      Yeeeeahhh Evid*gets arrested for creating a parody of an RIAA song*
  • iamtenninjas, on 06/21/2008, -7/+11Am I the only person that can't take an article seriously when the writer mistypes a word (much less the same word)... twice? It loses all credibility with me. "Proove?"
    • Ilyanep, on 06/21/2008, -4/+4Yes
    • iamtenninjas, on 06/21/2008, -0/+10I suppose that's to be expected. Most people can't spell properly, or choose not to. But, I just figured that a news article would at the very least use spellcheck. It's just a usual standard of practice that if you're intending to be taken seriously, you take the language you use seriously.

      My bad for having expectations.
    • jeremyosborne81, on 06/21/2008, -8/+5Oh ***** ...

      ... language Nazis!
    • Travelsonic, on 06/21/2008, -4/+4People make mistakes. It's not THAT big a deal. Sure he should have been careful in regards to spell checking, but uou still understand the article, right?
    • RoflCoptah, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2omg yes, that "proove" kept bothering me the whole rest of the article
    • smeenz, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2No, it lost all credibility with me too.
    • tehstone, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2He's dutch. I'm sure you have perfect spelling in at least one other language so you definitely have every right to rag on this guy.
      • iamtenninjas, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1If I were writing an article in another language, then I would be even more inclined to do a spelling check. And, it wasn't a commentary on his ability to spell, because everyone makes mistakes, so much as his not checking. It's just things like that tend to scream a lack of professionalism, which make it hard to take seriously, much less take the article as absolutely accurate. (Since we're constantly bombarded with inaccurate or far too biased reports.)
  • stouffer67, on 06/21/2008, -0/+12This is complete *****, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
    • WoollyMittens, on 06/21/2008, -0/+12That doesn't apply to civil lawsuits. There only has to be reasonable indication that you did it. So you begin "50% innocent" at best.
    • lolinyerface, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1Innocent until proven not sucking the teet.
  • kookbutt, on 06/21/2008, -0/+27***** the MPAA and their alien midget lawyers.
  • mjs814, on 06/21/2008, -0/+10Since when do we as Americans lose our rights. The MPAA just digs themselves a deeper and deeper hole with every word they say.
    • tvanwyk, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5"Since when do we as Americans lose our right?" Are you serious? Pretty much since right after the Constitution was drafted and ratified.
      • sliksta, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1How right you are. Sadly most people don't care as long as they got their ipods and SUVs.
    • cliffski, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1your right to steal copyrighted music?
      grow some brain cells asswipe.
  • blorguehad, on 06/21/2008, -0/+13Pirate until proven Pirate....
  • banido, on 06/21/2008, -10/+7Ninjas > Pirates

    Oh wait...
  • mike124, on 06/21/2008, -2/+7The MPAA just doesn't get it - for every one pirate you try to take down, 10000 more will take its place. You cant stop us.
    • sugarazor, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6YARRR!
    • Chiliap2, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6Not true. There is just a bunch of pirates to start with. Its not like people start pirating just because one pirate gets shot down.
  • vermax, on 06/21/2008, -1/+34here's where she works
    http://www.oppenheimer.com/news/detail.asp?ID=805
    fresh out of lawschool, suckup climber looking for trophies. ***** her, but good.
    this new filing is entirely treasonous.

    that company needs to feel some consequences, make their actual costs of prosecution so high as to be unprofitable.
    yes, I am hoping someone, somewhere, resorts to vicious strongarm tactics, on both the firm and any individuals directly related to these sordid ***** little exploits: live by the sword, and then be all surprised when you find it coming right at you. they are the real criminals here and deserve to be treated exactly as such. truly pirates, in every sense of the word. they trump up these perceived damages, based on evidence that is never more than the flimsiest, and then demand outrageous actual damages. they are seriously undermining this country, and would do so to a far greater degree if allowed. let the counterattacks begin, and continue until the RIAA and MPAA back off fully.
  • portnoy, on 06/21/2008, -0/+46So, then I can sue the record or movie industry claiming that they stole MY intellectual property with no proof and they should have no recourse but to pay whatever I demand? EXCELLENT!!
    • Hangly, on 06/21/2008, -0/+14I insist that you do this.
    • Cyber_Akuma, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3The lunch their lawyers eat every day probably costs more than you make in a year, good luck with that.

      Thats the problem with billion-dollar corporations against the little guy, they don't have to worry about winning, just bankrupt their opponent so they cannot continue to fight, and the prospect of losing everything deters them from fighting in the first place.
  • D14BL0, on 06/21/2008, -0/+25Am I the only one creeped out by the MPAA logo? It looks like some all-seeing, Big Brother-ish eye that watches everything you do.

    I find it more and more suiting every day.
    • greevar, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5It's an old style film reel.
    • btschul, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6accept your overlords or be jailed for "piracy"
  • Omek, on 06/21/2008, -0/+20Wow, I can't believe they're actually filing this... Let's hope the judge laughs and throws it out.
  • insomniac8400, on 06/21/2008, -2/+7I do agree that by leaving a file in a shared folder you are authorizing anyone who wants it to take it, but unfortunately for the MPAA if the file isn't downloaded by anyone, no one got that authorization nor got any of the file. So yes they have to prove someone copied that file from that shared folder. And on top of that who knows how it changes if the person claims they didn't authorize the software to share that folder and had no idea it was doing that. Intent is a big part of copyright infringement. And to top if off considering no one is making money off of the transfer of these files, the damages at best are in the sub 100 dollar range. And if just one innocent person is accused, the law isn't requiring a high enough standard of evidence.
    • bmw036, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1I follow most of your post without disagreement, except for this -"by leaving a file in a shared folder you are authorizing anyone who wants it to take it" - really? People like to say the same thing about having an unencrypted wireless network... the counterargument analogy commonly used, is that the above is similar to saying: If I leave my house door unlocked, I am authorizing people to come into my house and steal goods.

      Note that copyright infringement is not stealing, so clearly this analogy is not accurate.
      • insomniac8400, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1That flawed analogy is getting very old. No one is walking into anywhere. No one is depriving anyone of anything. The internet is not by default private like your living room. You network something into it and that becomes a public server. Anything open is by default pre-authorized for anyone to use. Otherwise going to a web server would be illegal. If you don't want people on your server, set up a firewall to block them. You can't get on an open free network and complain when people access the stuff you are making public. You have to protect your own files and your own network with your own security. People are horribly mistaken when they try to apply closed house logic to an open network. The people in China are really going to respect that. And locking up an American for doing something anyone beyond our borders could do without issue is stupid. It's simple, protect yourself, or ban yourself.
    • cliffski, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1wrong on every count.
      if you make plans to set off a bomb, you are guilty as hell, regardless of whether you get arrested before the device goes off. You really think the legal system doesn't cover this?
      get a clue.
  • falafelkiosken, on 06/21/2008, -3/+12Stalin thought so too
    • N256, on 06/21/2008, -0/+7Stalin also had a mustache, what are you getting at?
      • caramba420, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1I guess my inherent mistrust of the mustachioed among us has, in fact, not been misplaced.
      • Cyber_Akuma, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2So does Mario.
    • Hangly, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Stalin didn't sue you for cash though, he had you forcibly committed to a mental institution.
    • cliffski, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1you would like stalin, he was a communist and believed people shouldn't support copyright or intellectual property. get your facts straight.
  • SilverBlade2k, on 06/21/2008, -0/+8so, guilty before innocent in the eyes of the MPAA?
  • bbbren, on 06/21/2008, -8/+3MacCarthyism! am i first to say that?
    • D14BL0, on 06/21/2008, -0/+8I think so. You also seem to be the first one to misuse the term, as well. Congrats!
  • jp12380, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3We shouldn't have to come up with evidence! It's too hard wahhhhhhhh, wahhhhhh.

    Just put in judgments for us, wahhhhh.

  • identitymatrix, on 06/21/2008, -1/+6I've a shared folder in a filing cabinet.
  • jodokast89, on 06/21/2008, -3/+1so basically if someone says I shot someone, the Police should also be able to say "Gee ... ya know its to hard to collect evidence against this person so lets just shoot him because we know he is guilty." I can't believe this ...
    • jp12380, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3No, what it's basically like is if the MPAA comes into the police with no evidence, tells them that you shot someone and then the police go "Gee ... ya know its to hard to collect evidence against this person so lets just shoot him because we know he is guilty."

    • thefinger, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Look on the bright side. It will mean there will be fewer diggers to flood this place with ***** comments.
    • Lancelot9201, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Who says this doesn't already happen..
  • nivek, on 06/21/2008, -1/+8So couldn't we therefore accuse them of being pirates with no evidence?
    • Cyber_Akuma, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1If you want to fight a billion-dollar corporation with whatever little money you have, then sure, go ahead, don't blame us when you wind up in a homeless shelter however.
  • PopcornDave, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5What's to stop anyone from suing the MPAA on the grounds of libel and/or slander for accusing you of sharing copyrighted material? They've already set the precedent that a lack of actual evidence should not be a hindrance in a lawsuit. Hell, accuse them of sending backwards messages in the music that they put out that makes you eat beef if you're a vegetarian.

    They've set the bar, so it's up to us to hit them with it.
    • Yage2006, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Probably thousands of lawyers and millions of dollars.
  • Stallionism, on 06/21/2008, -24/+3Hmmm, I wonder if torrentfreak.com is an unbiased source. lol. How does this bias crap and blog get to the front page? It's obvious that some punk ass kid that lives in moms basement runs it.

    They don't need evidence. Connect to a torrent of copyright material, you deserve to get your ass sued into the ground.
    • com2, on 06/21/2008, -1/+7Go to law school you might learn something, like receiving pirated material is not illegal, providing it is.
      also based on all you comments in the past STFU.
      • Stallionism, on 06/22/2008, -7/+2You're telling me to goto law school. You're just some punk kid that feels entitled to "steal" people's hard work. Digg users are morons on this topic and use anything they can to rationalize it.

        Here's the law *****, according to the FBI, 5 years and up to $200,000 in fines. That's the law. Don't steal. Get a job.
      • Atomic1fire, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2You need evidence because if you didnt do then its being punished for something you didnt do...
        that being said copyright infringement is still illegal
        and its the pirates fault for starting this whole mess
        they ticked off a dinosaur and it went on a rampage
    • Travelsonic, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4"Connect to a torrent of copyright material, you deserve to get your ass sued into the ground."

      If the material is legal? I think not.

      Hint: Copyright status means nothing. Whether you have permission to share is what matters. Stop generalizing and go back to school. And while you are there, look up the meaning of the terms debate, opinion, fact, and opposing viewpoints, 'cause you have trouble handling them it seems.
      • Stallionism, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1Read the sentence again dumb ass. Connect to a torrent of copyright material. What the hell does material is legal? We're talking about copyright material. Maybe it is you who should go back to school, get a part time job and pay for your music.

        Also this isn't a "debate" or "opinion". Stealing is wrong and you should have your ass sued into the ground.

        Like I said. Get a job.
        • Travelsonic, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Thank you for proving you have the mindset of a 2-year-old.

          "We're talking about copyright material. "

          So am I.

          Downloading copyrighted material can be legal or illegal. It isn't dependent on whether it is copyrighted or not but whether or not you have permission. The way you put it negates the legally free copyrighted material.

          I already pay for the music I pay for - and not for the legally free.

          You need to go to school, because you obviously don't know how to construct an argument, or one without personal attacks at least, or read. Get a life.

          P.S: I have a job, *****.

        • Stallionism, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1Copyright material isn't a legal or illegal entity. It's property. You're right though, your right to use it comes from the owner of the property. Since the RIAA and MPAA represent only the respected intellectual property owner, they only go after them.

          "I already pay for the music I pay for - and not for the legally free."
          What?

          "You need to go to school, because you obviously don't know how to construct an argument, or one without personal attacks at least, or read. Get a life."
          You're the one that doesn't understand legal. Notice that people are getting sued for downloading pirated music. Suing is a private matter that doesn't involve legality. DRRRRR

          Thanks for saying I use personal attacks and than you use one.

          Seriously get a job
  • caseypc, on 06/21/2008, -0/+16AAaaaaggghhh! That person is a witch! Burn them!
  • Syphon8, on 06/21/2008, -1/+4Oh hey, it's like Highschool all over again!
  • dupswapdrop, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2So it's the I think you're wrong so you don't have any rights idea! This is the type of thinking that got us into the current mess with the war and the economy so it must be right! All hail the new age of Nazi's!
  • waluigi14, on 06/21/2008, -0/+7OBJECTION! This person is clearly NOT a pirate! They aren't wearing an eyepatch!
  • tchynerd, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Ok..... if they don't have to prove that I did the crime can I say they can't prove I didn't pay the fine for it? I wonder if they will take a torn off piece of paper with "Four Quadrillion Dollars' on it as payment.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.