Comment by nkassis
15 years ago
It would be like presuming guilt, you don't have to prove those mp3s are legal they have to prove that you stole them. Also having mp3s isn't the same as distributing mp3s. tptacek is right I believe. As far as I understand it, every p2p case has been about distribution or suspicion of distribution (make available argument). And they have to have a reason to come scan your computer. Hence why I won't be using this "scan and buy" service, the scan part is dumb.
Also as far as I know all my Amazon MP3 are identical to other users Amazon MP3 I don't think they have watermarks. How could you tell if they were mine or taken from someone.
In a civil prosecution (which is how copyright violation ought normally be handled, particularly at the individual consumer level) the burden of proof is usually only "the balance of probabilities" (i.e. more likely to be true than not be true), not "beyond a reasonable doubt".
(Of course, media companies would prefer that the government pass laws, pay for and implement the job of enforcing media company contracts, and this muddies the waters.)
That brings up a very interesting point - copyright lawsuits are currently civil affairs, and require a much lower burden of proof. The 'Industry' is pushing for it to become a felony, which would squarely sit it 'beyond a reasonable doubt' territory. My understanding is their current cases are full of little holes like this - would making it a felony actually make it easier for people to get away without convictions?