You cannot punish an alleged offender either in a civil court or criminal court without clear irrefutable evidence being provided.
One of the outcomes of the High Court appeal (AFACT vs iiNet) was that AFACT and its backers did not provide enough information (evidence) to iiNet regarding possible infringements. A Cease and Desist letter citing IP addresses would not be considered suitable evidence for iiNet to sever an accused customers internet connection.
Quote:
|
" Further, the Court held that the information contained in the AFACT notices, as and when they were served, did not provide iiNet with a reasonable basis for sending warning notices to individual customers containing threats to suspend or terminate those customers’ accounts. For these reasons, the Court held that it could not be inferred from iiNet’s inactivity after receiving the AFACT notices that iiNet had authorised any act of infringement of copyright in the appellants’ films by its customers."
|
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/04/hi...-afact-appeal/
Thus ends (for the time being) MPAA/RIAA (AFACT)'s whining demands for a three strike system here in Australia.
Tighter and tighter controls and more severe penalties will do little to stop copyright infringement. I hold little hope that MPAA, RIAA or the BPH's will make changes at their level to provide better distribution and supply models, which will reduce infringement.