If they already own 3 of the 4 movies then the MPAA should show how they are losing money. the movies were already bought.

I don't think cases like this go to juries. i think it's more of a small claims court kind of thing but if it does go to a jury, i would love to be on the jury because i would never vote for the mpaa or the riaa. we would need to set a precedent that they cannot sue people without evidence. and to me, an ip address is not evidence. show me the file on my computer and then we can talk but until then, it should still be innocent until proven guilty.

4000$ for a sole file (provided he owns the 3 others legally...) !!!!

It's expensive for a film...

The MPAA is offering him a deal? They're running scared! What he needs to do is get himself a sharp-assed lawyer and countersue the **** out of them, thus making an example of them and said lawyer a potload of money when the MPAA either settles or loses.

Interesting, Taken from Imesh's website:

"In July 2004, we made history being the first (and thus far the only) file sharing service to announce an agreement with the US major record labels. Today, we are leading the revolution once again, being the first company to offer authorized file sharing service. This new service blends free file sharing with authorized content, a vibrant community and more."

I know they didn't say anything about mpaa, but makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Can someone estimate how much money MPAA was spending (including all expenditure).

I think the next trend of "sure-win" business are bring the other to the US law, downloading music, video or even copying lyrics.

---
"Let's kill all the lawyers, kill'em tonight" - Get Over It by EAGLES.

Ah I see many complaints about the greedy MPAA. Do you realize that if there wasnt any private property we wouldnt have this issue? Intellectual property should just mean that we make sure that when the file is traded, it has the proper title and production information attached to it. If this were the case, then all of these lawyers would actually have to become PRODUCTIVE members of society instead of just stealing people's hard-earned money.

What the hell?! Are you kidding me? How could you sue someone for that much money. Adults download hundreds of movies every month, and yet they choose to pick on some 12-year-old and his grandpa for downloading just four. This is a pathetic tactic by the MPAA. Maybe they can't take a hint, but the general public sort of hates them because of their greedy tactics.

I think the point here is that the MPAA is not willing to back down. They already look bad in the public eye, they can't afford to be selective. I hate them as much as the next guy, but if they started dropping lawsuits because of the defendant's age, it would only make things worse. Read as: make them look soft.

The MPAA is nothing but greedy bullies. This poor guy is on fixed income and they want to sue him. Honestly the MPAA should be giving him the money for all the harassment he has been getting.

why dont they give it up ,mpaa, and they dont care what the public think well lets show then what we think dont buy any produccs connected to then lets bankrupt then.come on lets go for it,bring then down

woooow the kid is so hi tech already knew p2p
dont know what to said just pity the old guy

You can flame me as much as you want i dont care.. but I dont see how they can sue the grandfather for that much.. sure.. P2P is illegal, yes sure.. but even $4000 a month is a bit steep.. If they stopped making crap movies, put some thought into them and released good ones, maybe people would go out and see/buy them. If a movie is really that good, people will buy it.. even after watching a dl'd copy.. its like the RIA, They give a recording contract in a cerial box nowdays, they spit out music almost faster then they can count their profits. If anything though, p2p is a good thing for MPAA and RIA, I have used it and i dont know anyone with a computer that hasn't, if a movie/song was really that good.. then i will spend the money on it.. if it wasnt worth the disc its on, then thats money the MPAA wouldnt get anyway... So in my opinion its money they wouldnt get so they shouldnt sue..

P2P is perfectly legal. It's what you do with it.

If I use P2P to download stuff in the public domain (linux anyone?), then it's legal...

If I use it to download a movie that is copyrighted... it's not.

I agree. If I download something on the internet, and like it. I'll go buy it. If I don't like it, I shread it faster then you can say "bye".

I, for one, won't buy something, unless I'm sure I'll enjoy it.

BTW, You keep saying RIA... It's RIAA. Recording Industrutry Assocation of American

and yes, that's probably spelt wrong :P

Wow, have I got a deal for you! That's a deal?
Let 'em sue the kid, that sounds like a real PR winner.

lmao..

After all we've seen them do... You actually think they give 2-sh1ts about PR?

"He says the family actually owns three of the movies and his grandson had no intention of breaking, nor knowledge of copyright laws."

Meaning he's legally allowed to download three, and I dunno about the 4th.

I have severe problems with the way that MPAA and RIAA make their case - based on IP address. There are so many quite simple ways to "hide" your IP address or mask it so that it appears like someone else's address.

In addition, why in cases like these does the prosecutors not have to prove intent? Suppose you are expecting to download file X, the file is called X, but when you download it, it's actually Y. If Y happens to be in violation of copyright and X does not, then there was no intent. This happens quite frequently on file-sharing networks.

The key to the case is not the fact that the person downloaded the file but the fact that the person is sharing it with other people. This is similar to recent legislation passed in Denver, Colorado. It's now legal to possess 1 ounce or less of Marijuana - of course, that's not enough for a dealer to carry. Note I did not say that it is "legal" to download the material, but a case cannot be made based on downloading alone due to the circumstances above.

I do agree with the fact that ignorance is not innocence. Sometimes it can result in a lighter sentence, but the fact that one did not know that he or she was committing a crime does not negate the fact that a crime was committed.

I do have some question regarding the man's story. First, the article states that the grandson did not know he was violating copyright laws. He's 12 and knows enough about file-sharing. Every file-sharing application that I've ever seen has built-in disclaimers. It's all over the news. I'm sure even his friends talk about it at school. In this age, this is like saying "I didn't know smoking was bad, I'm going to sue cigarette manufacturers for not telling me." In addition, he doesn't understand file-sharing yet he understands the concept of downloading movies, and how to discover them after downloading (before being instructed by the MPAA.

Granted, I agree that the MPAA is going to extremes. But the fact is that laws are being broken, and if they just ignore them and turn the other cheek, then the problem gets even more out of control than it already is.

a child is innocence in then self,dont you read your bible

Cain murdered Abel.. Don't you read yours?

These grandfathers think they can get away with murder ! At minimum he's aiding and abetting his juvenile delinquent grandson. And how do we know the old man wasn't the one doing the downloading ?

He claims to already own three of the four movies. Can he prove ~that~ in court ? Does he have a video taped recording of him buying each one ? If so, let him prove beyond a shadow of a doubt his innocence in a court of law !

All criminals ~claim~ they didn't do it. Gramps here is the Ted Bundy of movie theft and should be sentenced to a very long prison term.

The Computer Rodent

I don't know why they gave you a -1, but you have a valid point. (prison time for a movie?)

"I don't know why they gave you a -1, but you have a valid point"

BetaNews has a pro-P2P and anti-Microsoft bias. They'll overlook babbling teenagers, but downgrade intelligent posts which disagree with their slanted position.

Actually, this is an improvement in their behavior. BetaNews used to delete comments that contradicted their bias. Now they only try to hide opposing opinions.

The Computer Rodent

so i guess you don't believe in the concept of the burden of proof being on the prosecution. Fair enough.

If he's done nothing wrong, then he has nothing to hide .... :rolleyes:

(For the intellectually challenged among you, the above comment is a parody of the retards who keep spouting phrases such as these).

I hope the grandfather wins. This is another stupid abuse by the MPAA. They aready owned 3 of the 4 movies and the 4th was removed. The kid was just young and excited and trying new things. The grandfather was 67 and probably is not very computer savy. If the guy is on a fixed income like he says, he doesn't have the money to begin with. No real harm was done. They weren't bootlegging movies and making money. There was no reason for this case to ever go to court except the MPAA doesn't care about ruining the lives of an old man and adolescent as long as they can strike fear in the hearts of the public. They need to go after the stores and vendors that are selling this stuff and leave the grandfathers alone. I hope they do enough PR damage to the recording industry that legislation starts to rein them in.

Here is what makes the case so bad for the MPAA.

The grandfather doesn't deny that the movies were downloaded. However, it was a young grandson who did the downloading. When the grandfather discovered it, he punished the child and removed the files. Most importantly the grandfather did this BEFORE he was notified by the MPAA that he was being sued.

Now, what more is the grandfather supposed to do?

This is what the jury will be asked the the grandfather's lawyer. "Ladies and gentlemen, if your child downloads a file and you discover it, what more can you do but delete the file and punish the child. What would you do? What does the MPAA want you to do? Take your child to the local police station? Have him arrested? What is it that the grandfather should have done that he didn't do?"

The folks on the jury (especially those that have children or grandchildren who are more tech savy than the parents) will begin thinking if they are at risk. What would they do in the same situation.

If you are the MPAA (or the RIAA), how do you answer this question? As a parent, I discover my child has performed an act of copyright infringement. I can delete the files, but what else can I do?

So you are saying that the grandfather knew that it was wrong to download and share movies, before the MPAA contacted him?
"The grandfather doesn't deny that the movies were downloaded. However, it was a young grandson who did the downloading. When the grandfather discovered it, he punished the child and removed the files. Most importantly the grandfather did this BEFORE he was notified by the MPAA that he was being sued."

Ok So he, the grandfather is at fault, if that is true. It was his job to make sure the child used the computer correctly. I am sure the child knew what he was doing, but it still comes down to the adult's responsibility to correct and control that child and to take the fall if they child breaks the law under certain age. If it were my child I would be at fault for letting the child have that kind of access to my computer and to be able to install a program.

Yipee for you.

What's really sad here, is that this guy probably was real happy with purchasing this computer, let his grandson play with it probably hoping his grandson would learn something, and didn't really think a 12 year old would be able to do anything bad with it (not everyone in the f-ing world is a computer wizard).

Its just insane that people want to bash this guy.

Would you buy a car and start driving it without knowing even how to start it? You should always learn something about what you buy. However the grandpa must have known something to go back and delete the movies and get on the child before the MPAA called.

You still haven't answered the main question. Your child downloads 4 files. As soon as you see it, you punish the child and delete the files. What else can you do? The files are there! The 'crime' has been done. Do you call the cops? Throw yourself at the 'mercy' of the MPAA?

If the Grandfather had been checking on the grandchild as parents/guardians should do, then he would have known that the child was downloading things that he wasn't suppose to. And who installed the iMesh? It has to be installed as an admin if on a 2k or xp machine. Are you telling me that a 12 year old child has admin rights? God forbid. It's a clear cut case of neglect. If nothing else the grandfather neglected to protect the child from the simple problems widely know on the net and all over the news.

You - like some others who turn up here - seem to be on the payroll of those who want to criminalize anybody these days.

I wish you exactly the same experience in your life, where you will be held repsonsible just by your own words here. Look out for it, man! It may be some 50 years - but look out for it!

If I fail my duties as a parent and or guardian then I get what I have coming.

Could you have possibly grown up in a more sheltered home?

Do you really think most people understand administrator setting and how to keep a visitor from having that access?

I would be surprised if you even had a pet let alone a child

So you would buy a rocket and not know how to use it? How about buying a car and giving it to your child and you had never seen one before? Don't act like I am such a bad person for expecting people to use .001% of their brain and check things out before they buy or use something. Would you use an air-gun not knowing how?

Terrible analagy, a car could easily kill someone if misused, a home computer can not. That is the worst comparison I've ever heard here.

Obviously, reading the rest of the threads here you are a minority, and thank goodness that is the case.

Whatever. LMAO you are a sad person. It seems that most people don't want to take responsibility for their children, I was wondering why we had so many school shootings and other major crimes being committed by children under 15.

"seem to be on the payroll of those who want to criminalize anybody these days."

Yeah, go for that straw again. It always works so well.

"I wish you exactly the same experience in your life, where you will be held repsonsible just by your own words here."

You're assuming our children and grandchildren will have zero respect for other peoples rights/property. Not bloody likely. Some parents actually teach their kids instead of letting the tele do it.

MPAA and RIAA are scumbags.
If anyone needed more proof.

Don't go to the first few days of an openning night big block buster movie. Fairly simple. Pass the word to your friends.

These diickless executives with the mpaa & riaa will get the picture when their movies are boycotted. After all it's still our money moving from our pockets to theirs which keeps them in business.

Write a letter to their corporate office explaining why you, your kids, members of your church/exercise group/tennis team are not visiting the theater to catch the latest movie. CC the letter to your local newspaper, tv station and the owner of the movie theater. Specify the situation you're demonstrating against - such as the gentle that is the subject of this article. With only 580 people not seeing a movie - that equals the 4K. Send your $7 to the person getting sued.

Heh, I haven't seen a movie in a theater since the second Lord of the Rings movie. Whats that, like 3 years ago?

I dont really go to the movies anymore.. its a waste of time.. the last movie i saw was Starwars EP3.

Its also too expensive to go to the cinemas lately, $14.50 so see the movie and $10 for a drink and popcorn, I used to DL movies and watch them before they hit the cinema, but even the quality is crap on them too.. lol

Seems someone did put "iMesh" software on the mans computer.....

Does anyone know if there's a fund to support this gentleman in his legal battle? If he is going to fight it, I'd chip in what I could. Admittedly it wouldn't be much, but if everyone who feels that the RIAA and the MPAA are getting out of hand chipped in what they could, I bet this guy could afford a decent lawyer. :)

Definately. If there is such a fund, and it can be proven legit, I'm sure many would chip in.

Heck lets start one. Open a Paypal account just for this. I am not sure as to how we could prove to be legit, but I am sure that it wouldn't be hard.

Ironically it may be better not to start one, at least until the worst happens and he loses his case.

I think this needs to go to court, not be settled before hand, because the more cases like this that actually go before a judge and get public criticism, the more likely that someone high up in the justice system is going to lay the smack down on the RIAA and MPAA, or there will be legislative reform.

Where will it all end? It's a sad sad day when you're suing people who don't even know what file sharing is, especially older people on tight fixed incomes.

First the RIAA suing innocent people, now the MPAA. This HAS to stop...

I understand if they feel ripped off, cause they can't get their greedy hands on more money, but suing INNOCENT poeple? Thats out of the question.

I once read that the RIAA sued someone for using Kazaa to download music... Kazaa doesn't work on that Ladies MAC...

Again, ignorance of the law != innocence. Never has been, never will.

What you read about the "lady using Kazaa on a Mac" could have been either an error by the reporter, told to the reporter by someone who did not have all the facts, etc... Meaningless without more information.

You know when I here that comment "ignorance of the law != innocence" I just have to think how many laws have you broken today that you didn't know about? Our legal system has grown to the point where it is "IMPOSSIBLE" for any person to know every law in their juristiction - including YOU.

Anyways, this will never get to court, the guy is playing it right, he should be able to begin a case against the MPAA shortly for harrassment. He could then just sue them for $4000.00 plus legal fees - I hope he's reading this.

Also, not ONE case for the RIAA or MPAA has gone to court, that has got to say something to you, it does me, they know if they fail in one case they are done - strongarm tactics are illegal - so where is the justice here?

Oh, and one more thing, I wasn't around when World War 1 or 2 started, but based on my readings they did occur. Its possible the facts weren't right in this report, but that's what was reported, so why are you so quickly against the reporter?

I understand the battle for copywrited material, but I think the MPAA has gone too far in making it's point.

How do you protect copywrited material without creating these PR nightmares?

What option does a large corporation have that would be more equitable?

Mandatory Jail instead of a fine?

Community Service?

Sarah Seabury Ward. It was in late 2003, prior to any Kazzaa clients coming out for the Mac. It was pretty well known, since one of the songs they accused the 66 year-old woman of downloading was Trick Daddy's "I'm a thug."

That's not too bad though; mistakes happen. Like when they tried to sue Gertrude Walton. Not only was she not a computer owner, she had been dead for 2 months when they filed the suit.

*nods* Thats the case I'm talking about. The RIAA/MPAA just sue. They don't care who you are. If your using a P2P network (Even legally... aka Linux) then you'll get sued.

I was about to mention that case when I read your post :P.

Mistakes happen, but they can't afford to happen in our legal systems.

You know. Most of the movies protected by the MPAA are leaked BY Mpaa companies themselves.

Like look at that pirated SW3 movie that came out before it was released...

Do you know what "Screeners" are?

No

Do you know what leaked movies are?

I believe that less than 1% are leaked, and most come from the Screeners. (of the movies that are out before in the theater)

most people forget about logging and packet sniffing. Also, all the mpaa/riaa would have to do is download the same file the g-son was and could do an MD5 checksum. Also, people forget that intent is all that is needed for prosecution, ie someone can be proven to a murderer even though no murder weapon is found. If you really want something to happen is to make a national campaign where you use this case as an example to persuade as many as possible not to attend a movie theater or purchase a CD for 2 weeks. Although companies could recoop from an effort like this, They as most companies depend on a steady cash flow to operate. to have to dip into cash would not only interrupt budgeting, but would lower thier net worth and lower thier stock values by causing them not to hit their projected quarterly income. just my opinion though.

What if he were to DESTROY any evidence of copyright enfringment. This IP tracking is not fool proof. The mpaa would have to prove that they are guilty, and all they would have is a faulty method. Am I right, or am I forgetting something?

I'm not talking about deleting, but use a "file shredding" program. Throw away any cds/movies. it's certainly better than charges.

I don't know about this part, are you required to answer every question in court, or can you say no comment, or what?

You can definately plead the 5th, but that doesn't always work to your adavantage.

*shrug*

Don't know how the tracking of IP/download works from their end.

You can say no comment, but to some people, thats as good as saying guilty.

OK, here is my other problem with this whole WiFi security thing, T-Mobile has access points, so does Verizon. You are trying to tell me if I go to one, that Starbucks, Barnes and Noble, and various coffee shops are responsible for allowing stolen content? This is leaving many companies vulnerable, I don't think its the case.

ALL the more reason to attack the SOURCE not the recipients, they shouldn't be allowed to disseminate in the first place. I can't wait until someone does this, maybe I will do it, at a starbucks just to see what will happen. Starbucks will just say screw you, we aren't responsible for a connection that's wide open. If you can't stop the flow of water into a valley, its not the people's fault in the valley that are drinking and using the water. If you don't want people to have free water, TURN of the DAMN spigot, or fix the DAM! ITs that simple.

You going to sue the valley residents because they are illegally obtaining water? Fat chance. The water is there, they will get it. Close the sites that have the downloads, then they won't be able to get stolen movies.

lol

You're using a PUBLIC connection, with permission, under the pretense that anything you do is your responsibility.

The same cannot be said for your PRIVATE home connection. In that case, you are responsible for making a reasonable effort to secure it from outside use. If reasonable steps were taken and you are still hacked, then your responsibility is diminished.

I assume that's where you were taking this, right? I mean, we don't even know if this guy was using wifi or not.

About two months ago the RIAA went through town here and was busting people on "public" wireless access points. I am sure this isn't the only city they did it in.

Trying to milk money out of this grandpa is already a PR travesty in itself. I guess their economics teacher taught them naught about "Dollar Votes" and their US History teacher didn't teach them "Pyrrhic Victory."

I'll pay $10 to anyone who proves that these lawsuits are NOT loss leaders for these blockheads.

Not proof, but I'm thinking it would be a pretty safe assumption that they're lawyers are paid on salary, not by case or by hour, which means their bottom-line would be unchaged with or without the lawsuit as far as outgoing expenses are concerned (minus court fees).

Just a hunch.

I'm confued....
How does the MPAA prove their case? They may be able to show that X number of bits were downloaded to a specific IP address; they may also be able to say that the file was named something.torrent. But how can they show it was the actual movie in question, and not a blank file or a year's worth of Usenet posting or something else? Is it because they also (illegally?) downloaded the same file? Without seeding?

How would it be illegal for the copyright holders to download (or upload) their own movie, I wonder...?

Did you think that one through before ya posted?

Gonna start calling ya "Itchy Fingers".

Fair 'nuff - but how do they prove the actual movie is what was downloaded? Are you saying they're seeding their own movies? Also, if a wifi connection, what about neighbors/wardrivers?

Hehe..

Wifi - Owner of the device is responsible. You can debate that, but I won't be listening. :P

As for how they prove a download occured of a specific product, I can honeslty say I have no friggin' clue, man. Go fish.

Umm.. no. If someone breaks into my house, and steals my credit cards, am I responsible for the purchase? NO! *I* am not responsible. If someone hacks into my WiFi and downloads songs even illegal content, *I* am not responsible, if I report it as such, I don't have deal with consequences. That's my point, how do they *KNOW* he has the movies? This probably isn't a router issue, I guarantee you I can get out of it with my WiFi. I lock my down, but my parents have WiFi, you are telling me that if someone with a laptop starts trolling the neighbor randomly getting into WiFi boxes, the owners are responsible? BULLSTHIT!!!

I am glad you won't be listening, you bullheaded, anti-semantic goat herder. You can't debate what you don't KNOW!

I know this case has already been brough to court, so maybe YOU aren't watching, but the WiFi issue is the same as a damn cell phone. Gradma gets her ID jacked from a Cell phone, and they make long distance calls to china, I suppose She is responsible for the payment of those charges? You get a clue. Because you are wrong.

Hacks into your wifi.

Big distinction there. If you can prove reasonable measures were taken to keep people out, then yes.

Otherwise, if left unprotected, your Wifi, extending into public areas, becomes public domain.

BTW: Why do you have to be such a prick? Simply stating that "If I put a firewall up, and secure my connection, I'm not liable if someone hacks through it" would have sufficed.

Instead you descend into harrasment and childish name-calling again. Why?

I believe WiFi networks use "tokens" or "passcodes" that allow access. If not properly set up, it leaves a VERY unsecure network. But Wired networks are much better.

Ö

hahahahahahahahhahahahahaahhahahahahahahaha ****in MPAA c*nts

Scumbags.

Don't MPAA get it, they need new marketing strategy for the information age. The old way just don't cut it. By sueing defendless citizen will not help them improve their sales and profit.

downloading to some people is merely an alternative to buying. the mpaa (like the riaa) is just trying to make an example and cut down the number of people sharing. faced with no illegal way to obtain what they want, consumers may well pay for it.

"Don't MPAA get it, they need new marketing strategy for the information age."

And this has to do with this article...how?

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out regardless of anyone's personal feelings on the issue.

I hope it goes to court. I just hope that if the MPAA wins, they don't break the guy.

I'll agree with that...

I guess whoever made that comment to the Paper got fired, now they are trying to throw some water on the fire. This is a lose lose case for the MPAA, and I hope the old man doesnt settle and gets some decent legal rep. Time for this 67year old to turn the tables on the MPAA.

This is a lose/lose case for MPAA, and it is possible that guy was fired, but I still believe that ignorance is not an excuse. Still this does seem rather harsh.

What probably happened--MPAA sued thinking they might sneak past the press. Didn't sneak past this time. Now that betanews posted this on their site, MPAA knows they are portrayed by the media as the 'evil' party in this case, so regardless of the grandfather's guilt, the court costs will now be too high to even bother with the issue. Is MPAA the evil party? Can't say for sure, the son's probably lying about it as he is certainly scared for his life now, and there's little doubt the boy did the downloading. It's violation of the law, so more likely than not the MPAA is just doing their job. The $660,000 thing likely hurt the MPAA in this case regardless though.

yes, ignorance of the law has never been a viable defense in the U.S.

can the mpaa prove that $600,000 worth of damage was done by this one person sharing four files? i'd be interested to hear how they calculated that number.

Yeah really, it seems like at best you could sell for loss of revenue and lawyer costs. Maybe they base it on propagation of the files. The kid shares the files, some X number of people grab it, then they share it with others and so on. The whole thing is a scare tatic, they are going to draw up some huge number release it to the press, attempting to scare people that are sharing, and then settle for a much smaller fee.

loss of revenue + lawyer fees could well exceed $4000, btw.

technically they could be charged up to $250,000 per copyright.

I can't believe he didn't get an attorney straight off. He's already blown 2 chances to get off on $4000.

I don't care how good an attorney he gets (and it won't be a good one without support from other people with finds) he still has a chance of losing, and that $4000 pricetag would look like small change.

Besides, once he agreed to the $4000 (had he done so), getting him to pay it is a whole other story. Can't squeeze blood from a turnip, and all. I suppose that argument works just as well for $250,000 though.

Pretty sure an opportunist lawyer would take it pro-bono. The media coverage for this would be pretty amazing and it would all look good for the "kind hearted, caring lawyer" who doesn't charge for his services.

This is what drives this country, Lawyers. Everyone wants you to believe that whenver you are in trouble you need to call in a Lawyer. They have defense, its called "public defender". He will HAVE to pay thousands to a laywer as a retainer before the case even gets off the ground. I wouldn't pay a dime either, the onus is on the MPAA to PROVE he has done something wrong. He shouldn't have to do anything, at this point, its just a threat.

"This is what drives this country, Lawyers"

Pretty narrow view of a highly complex system there, pal.

I'd love it if someone could get out of a charge against them laid by the MPAA with a public defender and *not* get buried.

I'm not saying it could never happen, but the chances that the MPAA hired Dumb N Dumber as lawyers is pretty slim.

We can only wait and see...

He's got a point. The MPAA could contact the guy, ask him about it.

Hell, the guy might even be happy to let them inspect the computer. But suing...? Thats wrong on every level...

Depends on your definition of wrong. Their defeinition is only bound by what is right and wrong within the law. Under that, they are correct.

Morally and ethically, it could go either way, but they are bound to protect the rights of the companies that employ them to protect copyright. If they fail to do so, or appear to be doing so aggresively, they die.

Personally, my opinion is that no "For Rights" group should be funded by companies on either side of the "rights" in question.

My definition of wrong comes from the fact that the MPAA just sued. Suing is wrong. They should have taken the time to consult with the victim, maybe inspect the computer, etc. But suing outright means they are desperate for money. Movie sales aren't as high as they used to be, so they have to make money in one way or another.

Suing is wrong? Tell me that after you get rear-ended by an SUV driven by a drunk bia***.

Suing is sometimes the only way to force someone to take responsibility for their actions.

They could try and talk to the guy...but where would that get them? Sued for harassment? Wouldn't that give a criminal just enough time to cover tracks and get the hell outta dodge?

No, it's easier and safer for the suing party to let the legal system handle it.

Not disagreeing with you that the MPAA/RIAA are a tad itchy for lawsuits, but I'm not ready to flat-out say their in the wrong either. If a crime is committed against them or those they serve, they have every right to take any and all legal action the law allows.

If someone does that, I call the police. And I should know, I'm a learner driver and almost had a car slam into my side yesterday :( if they did (and I survived...) I would have called the cops

Yes, but the legal systtem isn't handling it, as it hasn't gone through court.

But has a crime been commited? This guy owns 3 out of the 4 movies. They were deleted when it was discovered.

"If Lawrence is successful in fighting the lawsuit, the MPAA could legally turn around and sue the child."

I believe that suing a child is wrong. The child is unable to defend himself. He probably doesn't know the law. He probably has no money to settle the case.