Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
But we already do. As I've said before, if your car is photographed by a speed camera then the registered keeper of the vehicle is required by law to disclose the identity of the driver at the time of the offence. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
|
HarryT: I'm also a software developer. If I google some of the products I've worked on I'll see many of them listed on pirate sites along with the works of several friends of mine. I would love to see piracy stamped out. However, I still do not think an IP is sufficient evidence to fine or charge the owner of a connection. What it is, is sufficient evidence to kick off a more detailed investigation.
As far as the speeding analogy, I think you're missing the point.
If your car is photographed speeding and you do not know who was driving the police/prosecution have to prove you were the one driving. Whilst the owner has a legal responsibility to name the driver if it wasn't them, that doesn't apply in the cases where you cannot name the driver*. It is the case where you cannot honestly name the driver that is the one that matches the IP issue.
If you don't know who is responsible for the download and you've taken reasonable steps to find out, i.e you've protected your wifi and you've checked all the computers members of the household use and found none of them are responsible, then the courts should have to prove you did it and not just rely on the IP as sufficient proof.
This topic is going off track slightly with wider and wider analogies. Can we please remember that the issue is that as people could use your connection for illegal purposes without your knowledge, an IP alone should not be regarded as sufficient proof.
To answer your other question, if the law did require computers to be searched and we reach the situation of saying "a computer does not point to a specific user" (which is true), it has at least been established that the infringment took place within the household (otherwise the computers would show additional evidence that another party was involved). Courts will likely be able to establish who owns the computer, who uses it, is it password protected... All of which can provide sufficient grounds to reasonably conclude it was person X who did it. For a civil case that is likely enough to fine them and switch the burden of proof onto the defendant.
I just really don't like the idea of people been fined/cut-off on nothing more than an IP.
I agree that if people in the household are commiting a crime and you're aware of it, you're likely going to be held partly responsible, as long as it's proven you had knowledge or shown to be incredibly unlikely that you didn't know (despite claims to the contrary). There's lots of ifs and buts when you look at specific possible cases that could occur and I'm sure the law has ways to handle many of them.
* I'm aware there's going to be lots of people who claim they don't know who was driving and are just pulling a fast one. The police will have guidelines for when that seems to be the case and they'll then prove it and charge the person with the more serious offence. I'd like to avoid specific examples since I think it doesn't add to the IP issue where we have to assume you do not know who is responsible.