4 ms·
Yeah, but all the evidence pursued from a false basis can be thrown out of court. I remember a landmark case sometime ago where cops imaged a house using infrar
by ovi256 16y ago
Yeah, but all the evidence pursued from a false basis can be thrown out of court. I remember a landmark case sometime ago where cops imaged a house using infrared, and those images, purportedly showing a pot grow house, were the basis for a subsequent entry warrant. However, the court (may have gone all the way up to the Supreme Court) found that the initial infrared imaging was invasive, infringing and illegal, and thus all evidence coming from it was tainted and had to be thrown out. Therefore, it seems to me that a single weak link in the chain will nullify all the next links.
IANAL.
- tomjen3 16y agoIn a criminal court, the state has to prove you guilty beyond any reasonable doubt (or black, but that is a not the point). In a civil court, all they have to do is prove that you are guilty more likely than you are innocent.
- bradleyland 16y agoThis would only apply if the existence of a Pirate Bay account were the impetus for the investigation. There is just as much a possibility that the driving factor was the observation of your IP obtained through a standard torrent client. In your example, the IR evidence was the grounds by which they obtained a warrant. I'm not saying this wouldn't be the case in our hypothetical prosecution here, but the distinction is important. The bottom line is that suing individual file-sharers is an inane idea to begin with. The RIAA/MPAA are using this only as a shock & awe tactic. The rolling back of the file sharing tide will not come from the direct prosecution of every file-sharer. Their hope is that many people will become fearful of prosecution, thus resulting in a reduction of piracy.