did you even read the ruling

destroying evidence in a discovery has always been illegal/sactionable

your trying to argue that they can it changed by adding the ability to just ask for proof.

The burden of proof is not on the defendants side, they can claim they were unaware until the procecution/complaintant finds the proof.

nothing has changed paul no matter how much you want it too.

after the google/viacomm release of info ruling that torrentspy got a lot of flack for his decision by privacy groups, who could point to the redacted info ruling made by a capable judge.

judges don't like to have a permenent our and idiot stamp on their record, so they rule a little more carefully.

Are you on any sort of medication, hallucinating drugs, drunk or just stupid?

I would love to see the down loader who adopts that defense. Especially one who can produce his hard drive.

i suggest you look up the case law, the riaa has already ceded the point that recovery from p2p is not illegal. Even in the cases that the won when the defendent produced evidence that they bought the song they excluded them from the list of infringements.

They don't want to fight on that bases, knowing that if they lose bit torrent would be come as legal as vcr.

and providing the service would be as legal as walmart selling vcrs.

I would so hope that RIAA actually fights such a case, in front of a jury.

All they would do is ask the defendant to produce proof they had bought the original copy of the music. How many down loaders do you think can do that? The ones down loading hundreds of titles wold ever have a chance.

The table is turning. Too slowly but still turning.

well said

well people like me (canadians) could pull out the piracy tax info, and a reciept for blank cd and would be covered completely.

Downloaders who got caught could simply buy the cd,
scratch it up
say i don't have the reciept anymore

how could you prove when i bought the cd

as for downloading tv shows, i have done it myself, my cable bill, a copy of the tv guide schedule from the day in question and a copy of the supreme court ruling that copyright laws don't fair use copy illegal just because the SOURCE is illegal is enough.

Your grasping at straws if you think this changes anything. if the judge had ruled in their allowed them to make the safe harbor provision defense and allowed them to destroy the evidence that would have been a game changer.

This is just status quo of any other destruction of evidence case with an affirmative defence, weather it be murder, or piracy case it doesn't matter destroying the evidence that could prove your affirmative defence is a lie denies you the right to make that affirmative defence.

So the guy downloading 100s of CDs and perhaps just single tracks has to go out and buy 100s of CDs, scratch them all and claim he was just replacing what he bought?

You are more stupid than I thought.

But maybe getting pirates to buy the CDs they stole is a good way for the music industry to boost it's turnover. :1orglaugh

please you do realize that DMCA makes you responsible for all expenses regarding a false claim.

I could send you a bill at my hourly rate for the time i spent searching thru my collection.

and the scratched cd would just be an example.

you could buy the cd take the cover say you "lost" the cd, sell the cd to a second hand store.
you could borrow the cd from the library scan the cover claim you started doing that since a girl lost her house based on a threat and wanted to have a proof of backup ...

there are dozen of ways i could "pretend" this was for recovery.

it would cost you thousands to get maybe pennies for the sale.

hell you could even borrow the cd covers from friends and claim that you lost the actual cd.

You must stop trying to look stupid.

Only if I lose and only after wards. You would be risking thousands on a defense that coud easily be shown to be lies.

Your defense is going to get laughed out of court and you would be torn to shreds by a prosecuting attorney and could be found guilty of perjury. Stop trying to look stupid.

Now please as you're going down such a stupid road I will leave you to your fantasies.

The pirates are burning the papers and flee to tropic islands. Love this war :1orglaugh

paul you are not that stupid
it has worked already, the precedent has been set
in a case that the RIAA won, thousands of songs she bought/ripped were reduced to the 24 that she downloaded/without ripping herself.
It a bad case for the RIAA because it quite clear she is only appealing to knock down bogus precedents.
IF she really wanted to get off, she would have been arguing that she used kazza as a format shifting device.
That instead of spending hours hunting thru her cd collection to find the songs she downloaded (she bought them all BTW) hours ripping those songs to mp3 one cd at a time.
She simply clicked a couple of links and downloaded an mp3 formated one.
Fair use in the us does not care about the source. The source can be 100% illegal the fair use is still legal (and format shifting is 100% fair use).

She will knock down every bogus precedent and then finally make this arguement getting off scott free.

That excuse might work with your mother. But in a court of law, you better convince a jury or judge that your excuse is true. The prosecutor could show evidence that you have a history of lying or you associate with pirates or that your story is inconsistent. It is not necessary to rule out any doubt that a person is guilty. It is only necessary to convince a judge or jury.

Gideon, you stated in another thread that you belive "fair use" rights allows you to make an unlimited number of redundant backups. You are very very mistaken if you think you have a legal right in all countries to make as many backups as you want with copyright protected material. "Fair use" does not mean "gideon can make as many backup copies as he wants and do whatever he wants with those copies". It's time for you to grow up.