Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

if someone steals my Chevy, they are not going to be charged with "Stealing my Chevy". They will be charged with "Grand Theft Auto".

I think Grand Theft Auto is an "Intent" crime but unfortunately I can't seem to get info on it. By Intent I mean they must steal your car with the intent to commit another crime. Which is likely to Sell your Car, take it appart, or something. I'd think if they stole your car to ride in it, it would be part of another crime.

For example "Breaking and Entering" is the crime of entering someone's household with the intent to commit another crime. If that cannot be proved then the charge is Trespassing. Which is a sizable difference since Trespassing is a minor crime and in some areas Breaking and Entering can carry life sentences.

[Leafsnail]

But these were the instructions to the jury:

A hard drive containing the copyrighted songs was never presented at the trial. Thomas turned over to the RIAA attorneys a hard drive that contained neither Kazaa nor the infringing files.[6] Jury instruction number 15 instructed the jurors that merely "making available" sufficed to constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution rights, even without proof of any actual distribution.

So basically, even if she wasn't proved to have shared anything at all, she still had to pay.  You might say that the intent was there, so it didn't matter.  But then these were damages she was paying, so they should have to prove that she had damaged them to the tune of 1702 songs.  Saying that she should pay even if there was no proof violates a fundamental principle of a fair trial in any country.

[cowofdoom78963]

But these were the instructions to the jury:

A hard drive containing the copyrighted songs was never presented at the trial. Thomas turned over to the RIAA attorneys a hard drive that contained neither Kazaa nor the infringing files.[6] Jury instruction number 15 instructed the jurors that merely "making available" sufficed to constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution rights, even without proof of any actual distribution.

So basically, even if she wasn't proved to have shared anything at all, she still had to pay.  You might say that the intent was there, so it didn't matter.  But then these were damages she was paying, so they should have to prove that she had damaged them to the tune of 1702 songs.  Saying that she should pay even if there was no proof violates a fundamental principle of a fair trial in any country.

Delicious, isent it?

[Neonivek]

It is the glory of Civil Court

in Criminal Court the burden of proof is on the Procecutors and a verdict can only be reached if there is no reasonable doubt that the defendent did so.

In the Civil Court there is no Burden of Proof and a verdict is reached based off of who has the most reasonable story.

Though in their defense the Civil Court laws are based off of times when it made perfect sense.