dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
reply to JonyBelGeul

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by JonyBelGeul:

The point is, burden of proof comes first, then comes preponderance of evidence, i.e., the arguments. The further point is that at some point down the line where evidence is presented is where the evidence must be sufficient just to convince the court to order disclosure of further evidence. This would be the hashcode/movie, and the hashcode/movie checking software -- IP. At this time, it doesn't look too good for Voltage.

The catch is that what you discuss here would most likely come up in a court case - AFTER - IPs and matching names are released. Most people believe that Voltage has no intention of going to court for their 10K. They want to send letters out trying to scare people into paying. In the UK this number has been (I believe) 25-40%. This will allow them to send an even bigger list to Rogers / Bell / Cogeco. It's a business.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
said by A Lurker:

said by JonyBelGeul:

The point is, burden of proof comes first, then comes preponderance of evidence, i.e., the arguments. The further point is that at some point down the line where evidence is presented is where the evidence must be sufficient just to convince the court to order disclosure of further evidence. This would be the hashcode/movie, and the hashcode/movie checking software -- IP. At this time, it doesn't look too good for Voltage.

The catch is that what you discuss here would most likely come up in a court case - AFTER - IPs and matching names are released. Most people believe that Voltage has no intention of going to court for their 10K. They want to send letters out trying to scare people into paying. In the UK this number has been (I believe) 25-40%. This will allow them to send an even bigger list to Rogers / Bell / Cogeco. It's a business.

I agree. But then whatever is being said here must also be associated with the IP, the person, the movie, the hashcode, etc. And this evidence must also be just as exact and reliable as the other evidence it is associated with. Simply discussing the case, how the law works, or basically everything else but direct evidence is useless to Voltage. So posters who are directly involved or who know somebody who is should be careful not to divulge any information which could be used to strengthen Voltage's claim, regardless of whether they did in fact commit or not the allegations as stated. (Remember, some persons who were directly involved - who received an email from TSI telling them their name came up - did not in fact commit the allegations because they just weren't a TSI customer at the time of the alleged infraction. But this is just one first-line kind of proof of innocence. There are more ways than this to be genuinely innocent.) Name, IP, address, activities, that kind of thing.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.