MPAA says proof isn't necessary to convict Thomas

PC World columnist Scott Nichols summarizes the MPAA’s arguments in Capitol Records v. Thomas as saying that proof is not required in a trial. The issue, you will recall, is whether mere proof that someone “made available” content is as good as proving that they actually distributed. Says the MPAA: Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances. Nichols makes this good point – “I never expected it would go so far as to claim that evidence is not needed in a court trial. If the MPAA wants to uphold copyright law, it still has to follow other laws–like the need for direct evidence…