It seems we are not the only folks to point out flaws in the operations of the Cartels pet bloodhounds.
http://p2pnet.net/story/10758The idea is that MediaSentry locates an IP address and from that, the RIAA (or any of the other many so-called trade organizations using MediaSentry) can figure out who the alleged file sharer, aka "massive illegal online distributor," is or was.
An IP (internet protocol) address is like a street address. And in the same way anyone in a house can be doing literally anything, and you wouldn't know unless you were there in person in real time, it's impossible to know what a specific individual was doing from a computer IP address alone, unless it can be indisputably shown that absolutely no one else has, or had, access to that system in any way.
Moreover, a computer can be tapped by various means without the knowledge or permission of the user, this possibility being even more likely in the case of someone who doesn't know a whole lot about them.
In a fascinating [read it] cross-examination of MediaSentry's Gary Millin in 2004, he admits, "We don't have the identity of the person operating the computer, so we - we have the IP address that we could see where that piece of content was being offered from."
But, observes lawyer Charles Scott, "This ... doesn't take account of the problems of static or dynamic IP addresses; it doesn't take account of wireless routers; it doesn't take account of people using a router being behind a router; it doesn't take account of any of those things ..."
It seems rather clear that Media Sentry are not able to track the files through dynamic IP changes and thus the likelyhood of generating a false claim of infringing copyright is highly increased, this also does not even accept the possibility that the file is in fact a "spoof" one, as it seems they dont download to check either.
So lets be clear here , the Cartels lawyers demand the names and addresses of folks accused of copyright infringement based on flawed and unreliable evidence, it seems many courts are now becoming vocal in raising concern over this lack of proof, to commit the act of copyright infringement after all requires at least the generation of a copy, merely having a shared file is proof of nothing. (This position is currently under dispute in the US but I expect the wording of the law to prevail.)
