Ky. woman fights porn companies' anti-piracy suits

[Just Alex]

Interesting

http://news.yahoo.com/ky-woman-fight...083104393.html

Among those being sued were 57-year-old Josip Gotvald, a Croatian immigrant living in Tempe, Ariz. When Gotvald received a notice that he defaulted and lost a copyright lawsuit, he didn't know what it meant and hadn't ever heard of the company suing him, Raw Films, or the film he was accused of downloading, "Raw Rescue."
"I have never used a computer, much less used one to download a movie," Gotvald wrote in an affidavit.

[DWB]

So Gotvald never used a computer, yet says maybe a neighbor passing by used his wifi connection.

Riiiiight.

[Paul Markham]

Gotvald, who set up a wireless account for his college-aged children, said in his affidavit that someone must have linked to his wireless network.

"I believe that a neighbor or passer-by access my wireless Internet connection and used it to download Raw Films' movie Raw Rescue," Gotvald wrote. "I have never seen any movie that could be the sort of movie I understand Raw Rescue to be, nor would I want to."

Targeting an IP address is faulty, however using it as the first step is great. Look at the census to see the ages of the occupants. Turn up on the doorstep, offer the occupant the chance to prove he's innocent by checking all the computers. If they refuse, sue them for $150,000 or wait for them to offer a settlement.

If there's nothing on the computer then it's a case cleared. If there is, tell them the writ will be coming soon.

What Liberty has done is taking it to a new level. Bank accounts can't be shared like WiFi can.

[seeandsee]

IP is not person but still some rules should apply to define who downloaded what

[notjoe]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Targeting an IP address is faulty, however using it as the first step is great. Look at the census to see the ages of the occupants. Turn up on the doorstep, offer the occupant the chance to prove he's innocent by checking all the computers. If they refuse, sue them for $150,000 or wait for them to offer a settlement.

If there's nothing on the computer then it's a case cleared. If there is, tell them the writ will be coming soon.

What Liberty has done is taking it to a new level. Bank accounts can't be shared like WiFi can.

Lay off the crack. It's innocent until proven guilty. I wouldn't let anyone search anything of mine without a search warrant.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Tort law (civil lawsuit) is by the burden of proof by the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

preponderance noun dominance, domination, outweighing, paramountcy, plurality, predominance, predomination, preeminence, prepollence, prepollency, preponderancy, preponderation, prevalence, superiority
Associated concepts: preponderance of the credible evidence

IP Addresses are not preeminent evidence.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by notjoe

Lay off the crack. It's innocent until proven guilty. I wouldn't let anyone search anything of mine without a search warrant.

Serving a writ isn't proof of guilt. Those served can have their day in court.

IP address is only the first step. Having more evidence is always best. Asking a defendant why he refused his chance to clear himself and not go to court is allowed. Asking for proof he has a WiFi is also allowed. Ages of sons is also allowed.

I'm all in favour of more companies following the Liberty route. Sue the file locker, settle out of court with money and the record of downloaders, IP, email, history of downloads, bank accounts. Then sue the bastards for real money.

Then sell the list to someone else to see if the same IP address comes up.