3 ms·

Coming up with a 'just-so' story is not defense. They have evidence that links you to the crime when the standard is merely 'preponderance of the evidence'. Unl

Coming up with a 'just-so' story is not defense. They have evidence that links you to the crime when the standard is merely 'preponderance of the evidence'. Unless you have evidence that rebuts theirs, you're 'maybe a hacker did it' will be up there with 'maybe my sister did it'. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/songs-of-innocence.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/songs-of-inn... highlights some other confused responses.

lutorm 16y ago
If my car is seen leaving the scene of an accident, can I be sued for damages because the car is registered to me even though everyone in the family uses it? It seems they need SOMETHING that ties it to me. What if it was my sister? Or my mother? They have evidence that links me to the crime but the same evidence links several other people to the same degree. Is that really a "preponderance of evidence"? It seems at most they could use the IP to get a search warrant and look through the computers to try to find some actual evidence. Besides, is it really a crime to download a movie when they don't know if any of it was actually saved? Just because the bits were sent down the pipe doesn't mean that I received them. It's as if someone reading a book to me makes me liable for copyright infringement on the presumption that I must have been writing down what was read.
- boredguy8 16y ago
  "If my car is seen leaving the scene of an accident, can I be sued for damages because the car is registered to me even though everyone in the family uses it?" Yes. You'd defend yourself by providing evidence as to who was actually driving it at the time. So, for instance, if your car is seen fleeing the scene of an accident, but you reported it stolen the day before, you would have a defense. Or if your sister admitted to driving your car, but then she'd be on the hook. "It seems they need SOMETHING that ties it to me. What if it was my sister?" There is: you're the account holder for the broadband account that was downloading the movie. That is something. And it doesn't link several other people 'to the same degree'. If you have logs on your router that how it was your sister's computer on the router that was uploading the movie, then so be it. "It seems at most they could use the IP to get a search warrant and look through the computers to try to find some actual evidence." This is what they will do if you don't settle. "Besides, is it really a crime to download a movie when they don't know if any of it was actually saved?" This is why people should not play lawyer: the charges (for every instance I'm aware of, and certainly the popular USCG cases) are for illegal distribution, not illegal download.
  - lutorm 16y ago
    This is why people should not play lawyer: the charges (for every instance I'm aware of, and certainly the popular USCG cases) are for illegal distribution, not illegal download. A-ha. So then downloading is fine, then? That certainly makes more sense to me.
    - boredguy8 16y ago
      No, it's not fine. It's just what's been the focus in more cases. This article addresses the 'downloading' side of things for two other cases. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/p2p-downloading-is-it-legal.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/p2p-download...
      - lutorm 16y ago
        Sorry, I should have been more precise: The act of downloading itself is not sufficient to prove that you broke the law.

lutorm 16y ago

If my car is seen leaving the scene of an accident, can I be sued for damages because the car is registered to me even though everyone in the family uses it? It seems they need SOMETHING that ties it to me. What if it was my sister? Or my mother? They have evidence that links me to the crime but the same evidence links several other people to the same degree. Is that really a "preponderance of evidence"? It seems at most they could use the IP to get a search warrant and look through the computers to try to find some actual evidence. Besides, is it really a crime to download a movie when they don't know if any of it was actually saved? Just because the bits were sent down the pipe doesn't mean that I received them. It's as if someone reading a book to me makes me liable for copyright infringement on the presumption that I must have been writing down what was read.

boredguy8 16y ago
"If my car is seen leaving the scene of an accident, can I be sued for damages because the car is registered to me even though everyone in the family uses it?" Yes. You'd defend yourself by providing evidence as to who was actually driving it at the time. So, for instance, if your car is seen fleeing the scene of an accident, but you reported it stolen the day before, you would have a defense. Or if your sister admitted to driving your car, but then she'd be on the hook. "It seems they need SOMETHING that ties it to me. What if it was my sister?" There is: you're the account holder for the broadband account that was downloading the movie. That is something. And it doesn't link several other people 'to the same degree'. If you have logs on your router that how it was your sister's computer on the router that was uploading the movie, then so be it. "It seems at most they could use the IP to get a search warrant and look through the computers to try to find some actual evidence." This is what they will do if you don't settle. "Besides, is it really a crime to download a movie when they don't know if any of it was actually saved?" This is why people should not play lawyer: the charges (for every instance I'm aware of, and certainly the popular USCG cases) are for illegal distribution, not illegal download.
- lutorm 16y ago
  This is why people should not play lawyer: the charges (for every instance I'm aware of, and certainly the popular USCG cases) are for illegal distribution, not illegal download. A-ha. So then downloading is fine, then? That certainly makes more sense to me.
  - boredguy8 16y ago
    No, it's not fine. It's just what's been the focus in more cases. This article addresses the 'downloading' side of things for two other cases. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/p2p-downloading-is-it-legal.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/p2p-download...
    - lutorm 16y ago
      Sorry, I should have been more precise: The act of downloading itself is not sufficient to prove that you broke the law.