It is often very difficult, and in some cases, impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise; understandably, copyright infringers typically do not keep records of infringement. Mandating that proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many cases.

The rest of the brief goes on to list the reasons why the MPAA feels it should not have to meet the full burden of proof in its case (i.e. proving actual distribution). For them, the existence of a location where the copyright material could be copied is sufficient grounds for prosecution. When you take this off the internet, this is equivalent to suing some for 12 * $150,00 for loaning someone a CD they later copied.

For more coverage, see Wired and TorrentFreak.

Hello **infringing party**,

It’s come to my attention that you are illegally reproducing content from the Elliott Back Blog Network on your site. If you are unfamiliar with copyright law and how it applies to the Elliott Back Blog Network, please review our legal notice at elliottback.com/legal/.

Here are some examples of your infringing content:

**some urls**

The Elliott Back Blog Network takes our own intellectual property very seriously. Please remove all of our network’s material, cease and desist further copying, and reply in writing of your compliance within 24 hours. A list of our network properties can be found for your convenience at elliottback.com.

Thanks,
Elliott C. Back

I’m also going to make a list of URLs I need to hear back from, and when I emailed them:

• 12/01/2006 18:44, BlogoWogo
• 12/01/2006 18:51, Fungz [CONFIRMED]