Originally Posted by gideongallery

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.



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.