how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to roc5955
Re: Lock your said by roc5955:Though this may have changed since Bushco, Inc. was elected ... Elected? I thought he stole the election, twice. 
But to be on point, I doubt this defense would work in the USA. In civil court, you are presumed liable unless you can use a preponderance of evidence to prove you are not liable. Even if you can claim that someone else was mooching your wifi, you still have to prove that it was that "someone else" engaging in the infringing activities and not you.
--
"At the moment of conception." | | |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | said by pnh102:But to be on point, I doubt this defense would work in the USA. In civil court, you are presumed liable unless you can use a preponderance of evidence to prove you are not liable. Even if you can claim that someone else was mooching your wifi, you still have to prove that it was that "someone else" engaging in the infringing activities and not you. Even in a civil case, the person raising the suit has to prove that you were the person infringing. They are looking for an end node to assign responsibility to. They have to prove that they have the right one.
cw | |
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by wentlanc:Even in a civil case, the person raising the suit has to prove that you were the person infringing. They are looking for an end node to assign responsibility to. They have to prove that they have the right one. True. And in many situations the RIAA has succeeded in doing this. Regardless of whether wifi was "hacked" or not the end user was still held responsible.
--
"At the moment of conception." | |
| said by pnh102:said by wentlanc:Even in a civil case, the person raising the suit has to prove that you were the person infringing. They are looking for an end node to assign responsibility to. They have to prove that they have the right one. True. And in many situations the RIAA has succeeded in doing this. Regardless of whether wifi was "hacked" or not the end user was still held responsible. That's because their defenses were laughable.
You got one chick who says, "I'm too old to listen to that". Nevermind she has kids who aren't.
You got another chick who says, "well, my kid did it, so I'm not responsible, and you can't go after her, because she's underage". Nevermind the fact that in that case, custody applies...making the mother responsible by proxy.
You got another chick who now says, "but someone stole my WiFi!"
I'm interested as to why nobody has said:
- For uploads: "A virus was loaded on my computer, named as an MP3 file. I opened it from email apparently. My antivirus did not catch it. It in turn sent the MP3 to a bunch of people so they could also get infected."
- For downloads: "Yes, I did download that song...from my own web service. I already owned it, I just shifted it to a new computer."
- For uploads: "I thought it was just a song sampler from Amazon MP3."
- For downloads: "No, I recorded that from SIRIUS radio".
On the first one, it's way too possible for that to have happened.
On the second one, that happens all the time.
On the third one, it's stretching it...but entirely possible. Especially if you then went back and actually bought the song from there at $1 after you got the threat, proving you didn't steal it (theoretically).
On the fourth one, it's not illegal to record radio, so that'll shut them up quickly.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer; just throwing junk out there. | |
|
