Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
"Then why is your hard drive full of movies datestamped at the time we tracked the copyrighted materials?"
An IP address should be enough to get a warrant; the issue is copyright holders wanting to *bypass* the court system and issue expensive settlement options based on IP addresses. Recent judges have thrown them out, not so much for not having enough identity info, but for the fact that they obviously had no intention of prosecuting anything--they were hoping for a lot of settlement $ from people too busy or ashamed (in the case of porn accusations) to face them in court.
If there's an actual crime or other violation with real damages involved, an IP address is certainly enough info to kick off a real investigation. Proving absolutely that this one person downloaded the fies may be impossible, but connecting usage logs to records on the hard drive can prove things beyond a resonable doubt.
The problem isn't the courtroom standard of proof--it's that the RIAA and MPAA want to avoid having to meet legal standards before inflicting punishments.
|
How does this help us exactly? If a shared household computer is found to contain copyrighted material, aren't we back to exactly the same question - whom do you prosecute? The result is that we start a new thread: "Computer does not identify person", don't we?
That's why I stand by my (unpopular) view that the only rational course of action in the case of shared ownership, where the owner refuses to divulge the identity of the real offender, is to prosecute the owner.