Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ
Got a link to that? Since when did one have to prove innocence? Surely proving guilt is what is needed?
Or has American given up that whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea?
|
This is how I understand it to work.
They send you a threatening letter telling you that they know you have illegally downloaded the movie and they offer you a flat settlement fee in order to avoid further legal action. If you choose not to pay them (or I assume you could contact them and offer an alternative settlement) they then might choose to take you to court over it.
If they sue there will be a hearing where you (the defendant) will ask for the case to be tossed out due to lack of evidence or simply because it wasn't you. They will put forth their evidence and the court will decide if the case should go forward. If the court decides there is adequate evidence against you then you can end up going to trail. They will try to prove your guilty and you will try to prove your innocence.
You are considered innocent until proven guilty because in a full trial they will still have the burden of proving that you did what they say you have done. Maybe they will be able to prove it, maybe they won't. You still have to defend yourself.
Here is the link to the story
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64B0AU20100512
In the story it says: After unmasking individuals who have illegally downloaded films, the U.S. Copyright Group then sends a modest settlement offer. Lawyers at the firm are seeing some returns on the first two lawsuits filed back in January. About 40% have settled, according to the U.S. Copyright Group. Those who haven't settled will be sent another round of settlement offers, and the group promises to eventually serve lawsuits on these individuals.