On Monday, this article was published in our school newspaper about a student being the state's first prosecution for illegal file-sharing. Because this is being brought to the attention of the students and residents of Tucson, there have been news reporters running around campus trying to get interviews with students.
I got nabbed by one and because I felt bad about saying no (a pretty big problem I have), I did an interview. They asked, among many questions, if I had ever illegally downloaded, to which I confessed I did.
Now, I know a risk of downloading illegally is getting caught and there's a price to pay for doing it...but did I just open myself up to a lawsuit by freely admitting to a news crew that I do in fact download music illegally?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Possibly. It remains to be seen whether the establishment will bother to track you down, or focus on the "big guns" instead.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Don't worry about a lawsuit, maybe worry a little about disciplinary action by your school, if you live on campus in particular.
However, the RIAA is pretty much going after file sharers in their lawsuits, file downloaders are relatively unpursued.
Not to mention, if it was an interview for a written piece, just contact them and request you remain anonymous if they use you (change your name or whatever).
Heck, its not at all certain that what you said about having downloaded will appear anywhere, if they don't have a need for it when they do editing.
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
That is very good to know. I don't share what I download, it goes straight to a cd and then off the computer.
I'll just hope that they don't use footage of me admitting to anything, anyway. If I can't afford to buy my music, there's no way I can afford to be sued.
Thanks, fugu.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Evan if you did admit it, could the law use it against you? It was not a sworn testimony or anything. Can Dagonee answer that?
quote: "Generally, our process is entirely legal and non-evasive," Engebretsen said.
Does this mean they sometimes use illegal means to prosecute file-sharers?
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
quote: Evan if you did admit it, could the law use it against you?
That is what I'd like to know.
I'm trusting fugu on this unless someone else can tell him why he's wrong.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I was just thinking the same thing. People admit that they use drugs on T.V. all the time. I think the principle is that if you're not under oath, you can just say you were lying. If these people think they can take you to court with only what you said as evidence, they're going to be disappointed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Evan if you did admit it, could the law use it against you? It was not a sworn testimony or anything.
It would most likely be admissible as a party admission (if she's being sued) or a statement against interest (if she wasn't one of the parties of the action).
Since she wasn't promised confidentiality, reporter's privilege wouldn't likely apply, assuming it was a state action.
So yes, it could be used against her.
Safest course is to assume anything you say can be used against you unless you're with an attorney you've hired and s/he tells you that what you are saying is confidential. There are other confidential communications, but the rules can be tricky.
Dagonee
[ March 09, 2005, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There was a case during the LA riots of a man who agreed to be interviewed, with his back turned, about looting and destruction of property. During the course of the interview, he admitted to several crimes against persons and property. Later, he was convicted on the basis of a voice match of his voice to the voice of the person interviewed on the tape. So that's a precedent right there for an interview being used as evidence in a trial, as long as they can prove it's you.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
that really surprises me. When Dagonee first said
quote: Safest course is to assume anything you say can be used against you unless you're with an attorney you've hired and s/he tells you that what you are saying is confidential.
, I kinda thought he was saying that for job security.
I always assumed you could just say you were lying (like wha Speed said), and so it was too hard to use for any prosecution to try and use.
My thinking has been corrected. Thanks!
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
quote: I think the principle is that if you're not under oath, you can just say you were lying.
Speed and lem, the problem is, how much crediblity would you have saying your confession is a lie? The judge or jury would have to decide if the taped confession or your denial of that confession is a lie, and given that you would have something to gain from a lying denial, that might not go your way.
Morbo
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
They are making examples and let's face it - your infractions would be really hard to prove and cost the agents involved more money to pursue a case than they could ever hope to recoup or even make a statement about.
The only comment I'd make is - get over the whole "can't say no" thing.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)