In the US you can be convicted for possession of drugs even though there is no evidence. The accusation is all that is needed.

CMON people don’t pick of these majestic dinosaurs, if a few hundred thousand Americans have to be feed to appease the beast then so be it(and lose everything they have in the process). Heck downloading one of the mostly crappy movies that are made should be worth your life, heck how would we have lived without cult classics like THE HULK, The lakehouse and all the other bile spewed up these days.

More content the rest of the world can just download i guess….

Besides who needs to make good movies when you can make 100k or whatever per person dumb enough to download anything.

REASON IS OVERRATED XD
Like paying tom cruise to be in anything… But reason/common sense does not apply….

that is all

This is the bottom line, in all honesty. The MPAA is getting extremely desperate (as is the RIAA) so they are throwing out every bullshit argument they can think of in order to hopefully get one to stick.
Guess what? IT ISN’T GOING TO! Jammie Thomas is going to get a new trial. Another case was just thrown out of the courts, and the person the RIAA sued was given legal fees and punitive damages against the RIAA.
Things are just NOT going the way the MPAA and RIAA want them to go.

They’re saying that “making files available” is equal to “authorising the downloads”, right?

If so, and downloaders are “authorised”… Then downloading files in all cases becomes legal, the sole responsibility lays with the uploader?

If people are STILL not authorised to download, then the uploaders are simply “making available” and so they can’t be held responsible.

Seriously, there’s lots of cases where the US laws aren’t logical:

Ex(real examples): a spammer sends lots of people spam mail without showing the senders email address (which can be done somehow). Recipient tracks the IP and finds the real email address or something like that, posts on blog about it. Said spammer sues recipient for defamation. Said recipient countersues under CANSPAM act. Said spammer wins because “the email address is there since the recipient managed to figure out the spammer’s identity”….that’s flawed logic. If you don’t know the spammers identity, how are you supposed to press charges?! If you know it, then you can’t press charges?!

Another example:
Thief gets into a person’s house. Gets stuck in the garage, can’t get out. Said owner are on a vacation. Owner comes back, finds thief near death, gives food, hospitalizes, doesn’t even press charges immediately, and thief sues owner for not having “food” in the house (or something like that). Said thief WINS the court case.

MPAA are getting VERY desperate by the sound of it!!

@alecy…you are a moron and i despise everything you stand for..hope you Rott in spam heaven wiv the rest of the scumbag spammers