After making a lot of false claims and cosying up to dubious "donation" taking politicians the IFPI have found that it cant help them bend the law in Denmark.
http://torrentfreak.com/ifpi-loses-yet-again-in-p2p-wireless-defense-case-081007/A man accused of being a music pirate has been cleared by a Danish court. The man denied the claims of the IFPI, based on his assertion that someone else must have accessed his wireless router to commit the infringements. This is the second major defeat for the IFPI in Denmark over the so-called ‘wireless defense’.
In September the major Danish ISPs issued a joint statement rejecting the IFPI’s demands for a ‘3 strikes’ agreement aimed at ultimately disconnecting alleged pirates from the Internet, labeling it as a “contravention of the law”.
The IFPI also accused two Danish women of being Internet pirates, after they claimed to have monitored illicit file-sharing activities on an IP address registered to one of them. Eventually a court ruled in favor of the women and acquitted them of all charges, much to the displeasure of the IFPI.
Now, the IFPI has suffered another defeat, again in a ‘wireless defense’ case. Previously, a middle-aged man from Randers, Denmark, was found guilty of Internet piracy in a case brought by the IFPI on behalf of music copyright holders. The defendant denied that he had done any of the alleged infringing and claimed that he operated an unencrypted wireless network which anyone could access.
The court found that the IFPI held no proof that the IP address owner - the defendant - was the same person that carried out the infringements. This fact - that an IP address does not positively identify an infringer - is the same worldwide.
They can try all they want to mislead a court and bamboozle a jury with technical waffle but the facts are simple in this case, even though the IP was hopefully correctly identified the user at the end of the connection was not and it seems on this point the law is clear, just because you may be the subscriber it does not prove you commited any infringement nor made you liable for any occuring without your knowledge, only a hard drive inspection can prove the
possibility that you where the infringer and even that is open to challenge.
Many folks have over the years been mislead by threatening letters sent illegally from foreign lawyers, but the law is clear and unambiguous in most countries, unless you took part or had knowledge of a criminal act you are 100% not liable, something the moronic IFPI seems to have fogotten in its lust to extort money by fear.
