Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam
1. she lost
2. see 1
|
your using that case to argue that ip address is enough to identify the person as the infringer.
from a case where they clearly did a lot more than use her ip address to identifier
that like saying we should convict people on charges on murder if they own blue cars because cops were able to catch a murder who drove a blue car after doing all the investigation to successfully prove he commited the crime.
from the transcript your ignoring.
Quote:
Q. Based on all of the data that you saw, Dr. Jacobson, do
you have an opinion as to whether a wireless router was
being used in this case?
A. There was no wireless router used in this case.
Q. And that's based on all the reasons you described?
A. Yes.
Q. There is no private IP address, is there?
A. Correct.
Q. So -- and you were sitting in the courtroom for much of
the afternoon?
A. Yes.
Q. So there was no one outside the window who was, you
know, accessing a computer in Ms. Thomas's house through a
wireless router; is that right?
|
there is 23 pages of testimony going over how the ip address was assigned to a computer connected directly to the modem.
someone would have had to break in to the house and login as jamie and do the downloading for it to be someone else doing it.
like i said if this was intended to get her off they would have dropped that arguement and gone instead to the fair use arguements.
this is about knocking down legal precedents and keeping the appeals processes alive.
nothing within this case justifies the arguement that identifying the ip address is enough to find/accuse them of being guilty.
it a catch 22 but you need to violate/have someone give up their privacy rights to be able to get the proof.