Comments on: 23 Filesharers to be Identified – But Concerns Remain http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/06/07/23-filesharers-to-be-identified-but-concerns-remain/ Civil, Legal and Human Rights in a Digital Age Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:08:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Michael Walsh http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/06/07/23-filesharers-to-be-identified-but-concerns-remain/comment-page-1/#comment-29204 Michael Walsh Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:11:25 +0000 http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/06/07/23-filesharers-to-be-identified-but-concerns-remain/#comment-29204 Videos of the Copyright Summit are now <a href="http://www.biskot.com/clients/cisac/" rel="nofollow">online</a>. The session I refer to above is at: <a href="http://www.biskot.com/clients/cisac/video.php?v=7&q=750" rel="nofollow">http://www.biskot.com/clients/cisac/video.php?v=7&q=750</a> Videos of the Copyright Summit are now online. The session I refer to above is at: http://www.biskot.com/clients/cisac/video.php?v=7&q=750

]]> By: TJ http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/06/07/23-filesharers-to-be-identified-but-concerns-remain/comment-page-1/#comment-28782 TJ Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:21:51 +0000 http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/06/07/23-filesharers-to-be-identified-but-concerns-remain/#comment-28782 The US courts have recently commented on the issue of whether parents could be liable in respect of music shared by their children on their home computer, describing such an argument as at best "untested and marginal". See http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capitol_foster_070206Order The US courts have recently commented on the issue of whether parents could be liable in respect of music shared by their children on their home computer, describing such an argument as at best “untested and marginal”. See http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capitol_foster_070206Order

]]> By: Michael Walsh http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/06/07/23-filesharers-to-be-identified-but-concerns-remain/comment-page-1/#comment-25587 Michael Walsh Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:38:26 +0000 http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/06/07/23-filesharers-to-be-identified-but-concerns-remain/#comment-25587 From what I understand, as long as you settle out of court, before any proceeding start, then your name and address remains secret. So in some respects this is a privacy tax - as there is no possible way they can associate an IP address with a physical person. Anyone who has had their machine compromised by spyware/viruses or whose IP address has been spoofed is innocent of any illegal activity but the incentive is to admit guilt and maintain privacy. A machine that's been that's had it's security compromised could be used as a remote store by a hacker - so the presence of files on the hard drive indicate nothing. An IP address is not a unique identifier. I'm pretty sure any half-decent solicitor, given a day in court, with a half-decent expert witness could undermine these "fishing expeditions" forever - but it would be a brave/intransigent defendant to choose to take this course. I'm no fan of copyright infringement (which is what they are claiming these people indulged in - but using "file-sharing" to try and make the term a pejorative one) but if all you need is an IP address and the presence of files on a hard drive to declare someone guilty, then the only legally safe action you could counsel anyone with a computer is to never connect it to the Internet. At the <a href="http://www.copyrightsummit.com/newt/l/copyrightsummit/agenda.html" rel="nofollow">Copyright Summit</a> in Brussels, John LoFrumento, from <a href="http://www.ascap.com/index.html" rel="nofollow">ASCAP</a>, and Ted Shapiro, from <a href="http://www.mpaa.org/" rel="nofollow">MPA</a>, openly admitted that the tactic of suing your customer had proved to be both a legal dead-end and a huge PR disaster and what they were concentrating on now was educating people on copyright. Surely IRMA should try and learn from other peoples mistakes? From what I understand, as long as you settle out of court, before any proceeding start, then your name and address remains secret. So in some respects this is a privacy tax – as there is no possible way they can associate an IP address with a physical person.

Anyone who has had their machine compromised by spyware/viruses or whose IP address has been spoofed is innocent of any illegal activity but the incentive is to admit guilt and maintain privacy.

A machine that’s been that’s had it’s security compromised could be used as a remote store by a hacker – so the presence of files on the hard drive indicate nothing. An IP address is not a unique identifier. I’m pretty sure any half-decent solicitor, given a day in court, with a half-decent expert witness could undermine these “fishing expeditions” forever – but it would be a brave/intransigent defendant to choose to take this course.

I’m no fan of copyright infringement (which is what they are claiming these people indulged in – but using “file-sharing” to try and make the term a pejorative one) but if all you need is an IP address and the presence of files on a hard drive to declare someone guilty, then the only legally safe action you could counsel anyone with a computer is to never connect it to the Internet.

At the Copyright Summit in Brussels, John LoFrumento, from ASCAP, and Ted Shapiro, from MPA, openly admitted that the tactic of suing your customer had proved to be both a legal dead-end and a huge PR disaster and what they were concentrating on now was educating people on copyright. Surely IRMA should try and learn from other peoples mistakes?

]]>