31–40 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL" Why not? It's illegal to download a movie and they have to prove what person did it. Roommate, father, sister...neighbor.
This is a civil suit, not a criminal case.
Multiple users will cut that percentage up pretty quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL" Why not? It's illegal to download a movie and they have to prove what person did it. Roommate, father, sister...neighbor.
This is a civil suit, not a criminal case.
To clarify, the plaintiff does have to prove it was the defendant that wronged them, but instead the standard of proof being "beyond a reasonable doubt" it's something like on "the balance of probabilities."
At the end of the day you will be tried by a judge or a jury. If your only defense is some kind of grand, implausible chain of maybes and what-ifs, they will rule against you. If you have a perfectly reasonable explanation, then they won't.
An IP is just evidence.
It surprises me in a way that "big internet" (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast etc) and associated large enterprise interests have not been more staunch proponents of IPv6, at least for fixed consumer connections. It would be trivial in that circumstance to blow away any kind of NAT and the pseudo-anonymity/plausible deniabililty it provides and make client devices performing illegitimate activity directly identifiable. I wond…
> It would be trivial in that circumstance to blow away any kind of NAT Why do you think so? NAT can be used for IPv6 is exactly the same way it's used for IPv4.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL" Why not? It's illegal to download a movie and they have to prove what person did it. Roommate, father, sister...neighbor.
This is a civil suit, not a criminal case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose you lived alone, and this scenario unfolded. The plaintiff would reasonably argue that because you lived alone, you were the infringer. Would a court believe this to be reasonable? The ruling doesn't say. Now, if you then, using your own money, hired a computer forensics tech who discovered evidence you had been hacked, and also surrendered your computer and router in discovery and it was confirmed the router…
> Suppose you lived alone The best way I can interpret this is that your post was being deliberately misleading, because you implied that roommates won't invalidate IP authentication, but you actually meant that lying about having roommates won't invalidate IP identification. Am I missing a more reasonable interpretation?
I think so. I think in more than one way.
GP, if I read correctly, tries to limit the expectations we can have based on this ruling since the circumstances where unusual. (Read GPs post again for more details.)
English is not my first language but GP seemed very clear and easy to read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a civil suit, not a criminal case.
unless the law says "it's your internet connection and you're responsible for what happens" I doubt it matters that much. Standard of proof is much lower but still have to prove that x most likely downloaded the movie.
Most subscription contracts have a clause to that effect.
It surprises me in a way that "big internet" (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast etc) and associated large enterprise interests have not been more staunch proponents of IPv6, at least for fixed consumer connections. It would be trivial in that circumstance to blow away any kind of NAT and the pseudo-anonymity/plausible deniabililty it provides and make client devices performing illegitimate activity directly identifiable. I wond…
I really don't think it matters too much for client devices anyways, we've found plenty of workarounds by now where it matters. Maybe the best case is NAT-optional.