the MPAA is arguing in legal brief that plaintiffs should be allowed to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages with no proof that anyone has actually downloaded from a defendant's shared folder. The brief was filed by MPAA lawyers threw in in Jammie Thomas' appeal of the $222,000 judgement against her for copyright infringement. Judge Michael Davis asked for public comments on whether simply making files available is a violation of The Copyright Act and the MPAA took the opportunity to put in their 2 cents worth.

Actually 2 cents may be a little generous for the MPAA's contribution. Their argument basically goes something like this, it's difficult, or maybe impossible, to prove that people are actually downloading files from someone's shared folder so the courts should just assume files are shared with the intention of distributing them illegally and rule in favor of the plaintiff.

The real problem with the MPAA's position isn't necessarily the idea that sharing files is infringement. Even some legal scholars who disagree with the "making available" as infringement argument have pointed out that copying a song to your computer for the purpose of sharing it illegally might be infringement. But that's not the same thing as no proof. It would still require the RIAA to show a defendant's intent.

You can read the entire article at Afterdawn.