thomas case

Following in the footsteps of the MPAA, the RIAA has now filed its response in the Jammie Thomas case, claiming again that actual proof of distribution doesn't make sense: "Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners' rights online." See, there's just one problem with this.

The law isn't designed to make it easy to enforce copyright owners rights.

The Motion Picture Association of America tells the judge in the Jammie Thomas case that making a song available on a P2P network should count as infringement; proving that actual distribution took place is "often very difficult" and even "impossible."

The entertainment industry has been pushing for courts to rule that simply "making available" content for file sharing is the equivalent of copyright infringement.

There's a big problem with this, however. Copyright covers a few different things, and the key ones under which most people are charged is unauthorized "distribution." But, if there's no evidence that a file was actually shared, it's difficult to see how distribution actually occurred.

Threat Level reports that the MPAA now argues that it has the right to demand up to $150,000 in damages per illegally downloaded file, without having to proof that someone actually downloaded that file.

Well, well, well. The RIAA is not having a particularly good week. In the Tanya Andersen case (where the RIAA sued an innocent person), the court has awarded Andersen $108,000 in legal fees from the RIAA.

You may recall that the RIAA had protested having to pay legal fees, which the judge smacked down.