reply to meeeeeeeeee
Re: Devil's advocate
said by meeeeeeeeee:This reminds me of a case here in Maryland. Two guys are involved in a drug shipment scheme. At least one works at a shipping company. The sender sends a big box full of weed to an address. Now, the person who lives at that address is not supposed to get the box but it will be intercepted by the guy working at the shipping company. Well, one shipment, he fails to intercept but the cops find out about it and decide to let it go to the address in question. The address belongs to the Mayor of Berwyn Heights (small town.) Instead of taking the box before it gets to the house, they let it get delivered and do an illegal "no knock" warrant against the occupants. (No knock warrants have to be signed off and this one wasn't because it did not meet the criteria.) They go in and slam 3 people (including the elderly mother of the mayor) and kill 2 Labrador Retrievers who ran from the SWAT team.
Pointing at an IP address and screaming INFRINGER is an absurd argument. There are many reasons that an address holder who has NOTHING to do with infringing has his/her IP show up in the flawed techniques the entertainment industry wants to use as a standard. We cannot accept that, we want at least a reasonable amount of proof. If they want the money, they simply must EARN it and prove their case which means going MUCH further than merely identifying an IP address. If they want to remain stupid, lazy, and unskilled they should be sent packing.
They finally arrested the right people and the police had to settle a massive lawsuit (and the sheriff who authorized this raid lost his bid to become county executive.)
The point? Just because your info is thought to be part of a crime doesn't make you guilty.