Paul Brislen wrote:
No. The default is that you're guilty.
Not quite. <quote source=legislation> 22N Infringement notice as evidence of copyright infringement (1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, in relation to an infringement notice, it is presumed— o (a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constituted an infringement of the rights owner's copyright in the work identified; and o (b) that the information recorded in the infringement notice is correct; and o (c) that the infringement notice was issued in accordance with this Act. (2) An account holder may submit evidence that, or give reasons why, any 1 or more of the presumptions in subsection (1) do not apply with respect to any particular infringement identified in an infringement notice. (3) If an account holder submits evidence or gives reasons as referred to in subsection (2), **the rights owner must satisfy the Tribunal** that, in relation to the relevant infringement or notice, the particular presumption or presumptions are correct. </quote> 122N(3) is the key point. If the AH asserts that there's a flaw in the notice, the RH must counter to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. So there's a presumption of correctness on the RH's part, but as soon as the account holder presents countering facts the onus is right back on the RH. Which, coming back to my earlier post, would suggest that submission of a ruling from an NZ court that the process followed by the RH is invalid would be an irrecoverable death blow to the RH's case. -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."