You don't understand his position.
He said he did not download it. He also said why would he download it, as he already owns it. Whether or not he bought it before or not could still be argued regardless of producing a receipt. It would simply go to believability. Regardless, he is not going to argue he downloaded it but it was fair use. He has clearly said he did not download it. The fact that he owns the copy just goes to support the claim that he had no reason to download it.
Comparing it to a car stereo is not the same thing. There might be some value for an individual to have another physical car stereo. Just like there might be a reason for a person to have another physical pressed copy with box of the dvd of the movie. There is no real value in downloading it when you already have a copy sitting ten feet away from you. I think it goes a long way to showing there was no reason for him to download the movie. Not to mention it was probably on heavy cable/satellite rotation at that time as well, so he would have also had access to it in that manner if he had satellite or cable and subscribed to those channels.
Comparing intellectual property to something that is a tangible product with no means of digital duplication is simply invalid.
Problem is you can demonstrate why someone might want to own more than 1 car or possess more than one car. You are not likely to be able to make the same argument, succesfully for a movie that is several years old.
It goes to motive. What is his motive to download a movie that came out many years ago if he has the DVD sitting right there to view whenever he wanted.
Sure he could have been seeding it, but you would actually have to prove that. He doesn't need to prove that he didn't download it. The MPAA has to PROVE he did download it. So it simply goes to weaken their case because most reasonable people are going to agree it makes no sense why he would download a movie he already owned.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't understand his position. He said he did not download it. He also said why would he download it, as he already owns it. Whether or not he bought it before or not could still be argued regardless of producing a receipt. It would simply go to believability. Regardless, he is not going to argue he downloaded it but it was fair use. He has clearly said he did not download it. The fact that he owns the copy just goes to support the claim that he had no reason to download it. Comparing it to a car stereo is not the same thing. There might be some value for an individual to have another physical car stereo. Just like there might be a reason for a person to have another physical pressed copy with box of the dvd of the movie. There is no real value in downloading it when you already have a copy sitting ten feet away from you. I think it goes a long way to showing there was no reason for him to download the movie. Not to mention it was probably on heavy cable/satellite rotation at that time as well, so he would have also had access to it in that manner if he had satellite or cable and subscribed to those channels. Comparing intellectual property to something that is a tangible product with no means of digital duplication is simply invalid.
Problem is you can demonstrate why someone might want to own more than 1 car or possess more than one car. You are not likely to be able to make the same argument, succesfully for a movie that is several years old.
It goes to motive. What is his motive to download a movie that came out many years ago if he has the DVD sitting right there to view whenever he wanted. Sure he could have been seeding it, but you would actually have to prove that. He doesn't need to prove that he didn't download it. The MPAA has to PROVE he did download it. So it simply goes to weaken their case because most reasonable people are going to agree it makes no sense why he would download a movie he already owned.