On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Glen Eustace wrote:
On 09/02/2011 09:20 AM, Sam Sargeant wrote:
I don't believe anyone is going to be able to prove that. It will reduce down to "my word against yours"; in which case would the tribunal side with the account holder?
It is my understanding that RHs will be using techniques such as honey-pots, i.e. torrent storage claiming to have all or parts of files that the RH has an interest in and then jumping on anyone that attempts to request a byte-range from their server.
Hmmm, in other words, they're going to ping you when they haven't actually seen you download a single byte of a claimed work, just that you've asked them (their honeypot) for some filename, and in response they have NOT sent you the movie (or whatever)? What the law is about is what you *did*, not what you *intended*, and they still haven't proved any sort of actual infringing action. For example, just because a file is called "Terminator2" doesn't mean it actually contains the movie of a similar name. Instead it might contain a second video clip showing what sunrise looks like from orbit. But as others have said, making such a challenge stick would need deep pockets to pay lawyers. -Martin