Originally Posted by haridasi
Can you prove exactly who sat at the computer at the time in question? What the RIAA targets are the people who own the computers, and say they are responsible for what happens on that computer. So an internet cafe is responsible for everything their clientelle does.
There are obvious exceptions but, to give one example, I am a single person and live alone. Evidence of illegal downloading on my IP address would therefore pretty conclusively point to me. At least here in the UK, a civil case does not have to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", but merely "on the balance of probabilities". The balance of probabilities would suggest that if my computer has been used to download illegal material, then I am responsible. Don't you agree?
There's nothing inherently "unjust" in holding the owner of a computer responsible for crimes committed with that computer. Exactly the same is done with cars - if a speed camera takes a photograph of my car speeding, the authorities don't have to prove that it was me driving it at the time in order to prosecute me for that offence. The assumption is made that it is my responsibility unless I can prove otherwise.