Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
But, once the proof is there that it's your IP address, then either you take the fine, or you state who was responsible, just like you do with a speed camera conviction. Is that unreasonable?
|
The owner might be responsible to an extent, but they're not fully responsible for all penalties. For example, if you get a parking ticket, you're not responsible if you were not the one driving, you don't have to prove you were not the one driving, they have to prove you were.
With speeding, they have to show _you_ were the driver in order for you to be the one who is fined. Sure the fine will go to the registered keeper of the vehicle and they may just pay it, but they can also argue they were not the driver and go to court. Then the prosecution has to prove they were the driver (if you falsely claim you're not then get presented with a photo showing you were, you're in even more trouble
as deserved) however my point is, even with speeding, just having a picture of the car/plate is not enough they need to prove who was driving (picture, witnesses etc)
Why should IPs be treated differently? Notices should go to the registered owner of the connection who should be expected to make sure their connections are secure (or pay someone to verify it for them) but when it comes to prosecuting them I think they should have to prove who was responsible.
Perhaps copyright infringement needs to be made into an offence the police can handle by seizure of computers at the address in question for a search for infringing material. However that would place even more of a burden on the police who are likely already overworked in dealing with more serious crimes. But, I can't see any real way a company could be expected to show you were the one who downloaded something unless they can have the police seize your computers to find out. I don't think just saying it's your IP you're responsible is good enough, but I also don't think companies have a valid alternative at this point.