Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
Ah, but presumably this means that in order to bring proceedings against someone for distributing copyrighted materials (without the permission of the copyright holder), it still has to be proved that this person was indeed distributing said materials. Which would be kind of hard unless a copy of the materials was actually obtained? Unless reasonable suspicion is sufficient that is.
|
The RIAA did not need to provide physical proof of Jammie Thomas's distribution of copyrighted works, merely providing enough compelling evidence of her intent / ability to do so was enough. Interestingly none of the recipients of her illegally "distributed" works were / have been charged. The woman was an idiot - as was her chosen method of defence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
Oh... You didn't actually say you wanted it did you? I genuiney thought you just wanted to know if I had it  |
Ignorance is no defence - you have 28 days*.
*Does anyone have Moorcrofts number?