Comments on: Big Music wins UK p2p case

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:36:54 +0000

They identified my IP as being “suspected” of offering copyrighted uploads…. Don’t they still have to prove that I actually did it?

Suppose I was downloading/uploading copyrighted files, and I was identified as a “suspect”. The RIAA (or whoever) would have to go to court to force the ISP to reveal my name. In the meantime, I’ve copied all my downloaded music onto my iPod, and may even have made backups on CD’s that I keep at grandma’s place

After a week or so of sharing them, I would then delete the copyrighted files from my hard drive. Where is the proof then? “Mr RIAA, I have no idea why you think I’m a suspect, have a look at my PC – do you see any copyrighted files available for upload? Why do you insist I settle with you when I haven’t done anything wrong?” (hehehe)

Can anyone poke any holes in this approach? Could the RIAA (and their law enforcement lackeys) turn my entire life upside down looking for proof i.e. my iPod or CD backups?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:01:36 +0000

verizon fight and win, uk isps must fight or they cant log users in all protocolls and dont give names

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:24:22 +0000

Yeah, thanks, that’s kind of the same thing I was looking for, but I remember the p2pnet story I’m thinking of talking a bit more about how the DOJ was thinking of passing legislation that would allow them to simply sue alleged filesharers instead of prosecute them normally to alleviate the typical burden of proof associated with prosecution (but not civil suits). Do you know where that one is?

Thanks again for looking into this – I did a dozen searches but couldn’t find it.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:58:29 +0000

This one?

http://p2pnet.net/story/2711

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:11:00 +0000

Where’d that story go – the one about Congress developing legislation that would allow them to sue alleged filesharers like the RIAA instead of having to build up a case strong enough fully prosecute them?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:03:48 +0000

We’ve become nice little Americans with funny accents.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:20:46 +0000

well privacy and actual proof of infringment prior to identifying alleged infringers obviously isn’t important in the UK (well, look at the UK govs ramrod style for biometric ID) … the burden of proof must be microscopic there, ie BPI’s word that they are actually engaged in copyright infringment is enough to violate one’s privacy, either that or unlike the Canadian case BPI actually presented evidence showing the users actively engaged in willful copyright infringement (ie advertising your MP3 collection for download to all and not those that have already purchased the license for the music and say have lost their CD – yes, I know Jack V we should then go out and just buy another copy according to your interpretation of ‘fair use’)