[LINK] Proof of piracy not needed says MPAA

[Adam Todd]

At 08:23 25/06/2008, Jan Whitaker wrote:
>At 04:54 PM 25/06/2008, David Boxall wrote:
> ><http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2219836/proof-piracy-needed-mpaa>
> >
> >"An attorney for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has
> >suggested that the organisation should not have to provide proof of
> >piracy in future trials."
> >..."the plaintiff should not have to provide evidence as it is often
> >difficult to collect"...
> >
> >Speechless, I am.
>
>More;
>
>MPAA attorney Marie L. van Uitert wrote in a filing in the case of
><http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/mpaathomas_brief.pdf>Capitol
>Records versus Jammie Thomas (PDF) that the plaintiff should not have
>to provide evidence as it is often difficult to collect.
>
>[ME: that attorney should lose her license as having a complete
>disregard for legal precepts. I think I'll accuse her of, oh, how
>about murder, and see how she responds. {sigh}]

But this happens in Australia all the time.  People are charged with 
criminal offences in AUS that the State has NO evidence of, however 
relies on people being scared or not being able to afford a solicitor 
to plead guilt.

I know from FIRST HAND experience.

Worse off, a Supreme Court JUDGE made findings IN a JUDGEMENT of 
things that were not tendered in evidence, in an affidavit or spoken 
in the court room, in fact the findings are so pathetic they conflict 
with over 500 pages of State Government records held in the Exhibits 
Rooms at the time the judgement was being made.

When challenged on the issue the Judge simply said "So what"

Many Criminal Offences in Australia now rely on the defendant to 
prove they did not commit the offence and not the prosecution.

The fact the MPAA is pushing this line is no random event.  It's 
becoming common in law around the world that the State or the Big 
Corporate need not prove their position in plaint, but to expect the 
defendant to plead why they are not guilty.


Traditional Law requires the Plaintiff to prove their case and the 
good defendant will question why their points are valid or comply 
with law.  A Good Defendant rarely argues using opposing facts.