how-to block ads
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| reply to PolarBear
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
said by PolarBear  :I don't think iSEPIC's point was how much evidence they had against you, but that the current civil suit system is simply unfair to the defendant. You think the defendant SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE they are innocent? Ever been charged with a crime (especially a felony) Nightfall? I'm willing to bet you have NEVER had to defend yourself in a court of law. Do that, then get back to us on defendant's rights. What if I were to sue you for $1,000,000 for whatever-I-could-come-up-with? Say, you painted your house purple and it lowered the value of mine (this happened in Seattle one time, don't remember the outcome). I had a picture of your newly-painted house, and an old and recent appraisal of my home showing this. Looks like I could surely prove my case. Oh, but shouldn't you have the right as a US citizen and a homeowner in the US to paint your house as you see fit? That was rhetorical; don't answer it. I was just trying to make a point. You should not be allowed to sue anyone over any bullshit you want, and if you do, the poor bastard you sue should have some rights. In our criminal system, there are only certain things the prosecution may charge you with, and even then, they are REQUIRED to give you a lawyer (albeit a lousy one), and THEY must prove you did it beyond a reasonable doubt. And they have to do it all within 90 days unless you agree to a continuance. Why should a criminal be afforded all those rights, yet John Doe who is a good citizen who minds his own damn business can be subjected to a frivolous lawsuit, and his only rights are to pay for his own defense and spend his own time and money to try and win? You seem to be taking what I am saying out of context. Do I believe the defendant should have to prove they are innocent in say a murder case? Absolutely not! Civil court is much different that criminal court. If I bring charges against someone in civil court, then the defendant should have a right to prove they are innocent. You are correct, in a criminal court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In a civil court, there is more burden of proof on the defendant.
The problems you describe have to do with the current system of law, which I agree is bloated and sucks. We are talking about a system where OJ Simpson went free and multiple murders can get out of their sentences just by hiring the best lawyer money can buy.
The system is not a good one I will give you that much.
However, that should NOT give everyone a free pass to infringe on copyright, which is the impression I am getting from your post. You seem to think since the RIAA have filed frivolous lawsuits means that everyone who infringe on copyright should be passed by.
You also seem to think that every lawsuit is frivolous, which is not accurate. The digital trail is clear, and those people who are traced should be sued in civil court and they should get penalized in court or settling out of court. I would prefer a neutral governing body do the work on assessing the damage, the evidence, and determining the best course of action. That just hasn't happened, but I hope it will.
The news about the frivolous lawsuits are just like bad customer reviews. You never hear about the good customer reviews because good news never travels so far. However, if someone gives you a bad review, they will tell 100 people about it. Same goes for these lawsuits...
I am a firm believer that a vast majority of these lawsuits are legit. How do I know this? Log into a public torrent site sometime and you can see a list of everyone who is sharing a file when you try to download something. You can see their ISP and IP address. Its kinda hard to deny that there are a ton of people out there sharing. Those people sharing works that aren't theirs are subject to lawsuits, and to be honest, they should be taken to court over it.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Better a 1000 copyright infringers get off, than 1 innocent person be convicted. The problem is that the RIAA is only interested in a cash settlement, they have NO interest in justice being served. So, if you believe the RIAA has a right to sue someone, based on a 3rd party claim, then you obviously don't believe in the 'innocent until PROVEN guilty' clause of our constitution. The RIAA is wielding a big stick, to scare people into settling, and that is just plain wrong. The RIAA must PROVE that a person did the said crime. The RIAA must PROVE it wasn't an open hotspot. Unless the RIAA can meet the highest levels of proof, they shouldn't be able to sue someone.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall : You seem to think since the RIAA have filed frivolous lawsuits means that everyone who infringe on copyright should be passed by. You also seem to think that every lawsuit is frivolous, which is not accurate. The digital trail is clear, and those people who are traced should be sued in civil court and they should get penalized in court or settling out of court. How did the RIAA "find" the digital trail of deceased persons, or people who have not owned computers?
What ever tactics or methods used to determine the digital trace of deceased people, seriously casts a frivolous shadow on all civil suits they file.
It's hard to believe anything they say as truthful, given' the payola, collusion and non payment of past due royalties to their artists, they somehow "could not find".
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
|
