 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to sandman_1
Re: You own the link; you pay the fine said by sandman_1:Anyway since you think that the owner is solely responsible for their connection, what if someone broke into your WiFi and downloaded child porn or downloaded some copyrighted works that you were blamed for? I am sure you would be saying, "Well that wasn't me!!"
Besides owners of a connection should be given the benefit of the doubt. That is what our legal system is based on, innocent until proven guilty. We don't blame ISP's when someone on their network downloads something copyrighted even though they own the pipes coming into your neighborhood. Why can't the same be true for someone who has several computers at home and a home LAN.
You, as many others do, keep confusing civil and criminal law. In the child porn example, the IP is only used to obtain a CRIMINAL search warrant. Where the police then search for proof of child porn access. The IP addr alone is not sufficient for even charging you with a crime. So owners of the connection are given the benefit of the doubt in CRIMINAL cases.
In CIVIL cases and in copyright law, it is NOT necessary to determine which person has used the IP addr to download copyrighted material. Only a preponderance of the evidence is needed, and the presumption is that the lessee of the internet connection is guilty unless THEY can prove otherwise. |
|
| That's YOUR presumption, not a reasonable person's presumption! They would have to weigh the evidence in court and decide for themselves... |
|
| reply to Linklist
I guess you don't realize that the case the judge was ruling on was civil so... |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:In CIVIL cases and in copyright law, it is NOT necessary to determine which person has used the IP addr to download copyrighted material. Only a preponderance of the evidence is needed, and the presumption is that the lessee of the internet connection is guilty unless THEY can prove otherwise.
"Guilt" isn't even a consideration in civil cases, only responsibility for a tort.
The problem with the "mass subpoenas" sought by the MAFIAAs is that they don't intend to prove a tort, only to extort a settlement.
Would be interesting to consider the implications of a 'botted computer. Not a totally rare event. Is the owner of a hijacked automobile responsible for a tort if the hijacker causes property damage or bodily harm as a result of the hijacking? A 'botted computer is the analog to the 'jacked automobile.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
