My stepfather asked me a question about copyright, which got me thinking. Why is it that the RIAA and the MPAA get to use the tools that local, state, and federal prosecutors have, yet they have none of the constraints?
The RIAA and MPAA get to search their victims computers (more on this later), without a warrant, then go to court to have computers siezed. After not finding anything, they then can claim that the evidence of infringement is non-existent, but that doesn't matter, because they can prove infringement based on the IP address.
Prosecutors have to prove reasonable suspicion, get a warrant, then meet a burden of proof. Jammie Thomas-Rasset and Joel Tannenbaum, under laws that make their alleged actions civil and/or criminal offenses, have been railroaded by a system that allows the accuser (the RIAA and the MPAA) use criminal prosecution tools and then only have to meet the civil burden of proof (something that they rarely do).
Why do the RIAA and MPAA get to use law that criminalizes an act, that allows for civil compensation, in such a fashion that a criminal conviction is not required to to receive civil compensation, yet criminal discovery procedures are used to build a case that only needs to meet civil burden of proof?
I am not a lawyer, but I have watched the People's Court, Judge Judy, and Judge Joe Brown. I cannot recall in any civil case a plaintiff being granted access to a respondant's property to prove their case. It just doesn't happen.
If the RIAA and MPAA wants to sue me in civil court for copyright infringement, go ahead, but they are either going to sue me without me turning over my property, or they are going to have to go to a prosecutor and charge me criminally. They will not use the full force of criminal law for a civil case against me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment