"Among other things, the declaration asserts that the BitTorrent software does not work in the manner the plaintiff alleges and that a mere subscriber to an ISP is not necessarily a copyright infringer, with explanations as to how computer-based technology would allow non-subscribers to access a particular IP address," Justice Baylson wrote.
According to the declarant, "there is no reason to assume an ISP subscriber is the same person who may be using BitTorrent to download the alleged copyrighted material," Justice Baylson continues, and a trial is needed to decide who is right on these issues.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/318562,ip-addresses-as-evidence-in-copyright-cases-to-be-tested.aspxFor more details of the defense mentioned in this article, the full details are outlined here.
http://dietrolldie.com/2012/06/06/dtd-slcm-strikes-home-malibu-media-v-john-does-1-14-212-cv-02084-eastern-district-pa/which include
a.Home Wireless Internet access point run open (like at an airport or coffee bar) and abused by an unknown person.
b.Guest at the residence abusing the Internet connection without the owner knowing.
c.Neighbor connects (knowingly or unknowingly) to the network and the owner doesn't know ofthis activity.
d.IP address is part ofa group residence (roommates), apartment building, or small home business where a user (not the ISP subscriber) downloaded/shared copyright protected movie.
e.Home system infected by a Trojan Horse mal ware program and controlled by unknown personnel.
f.Unknown person hacks the Wireless security settings ofthe WFR to abuse the owners Internet connection.
