ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> LawPundit

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Commentary

: LawPundit

Copyright Infringement: Are IP Addresses People? England and Wales Patent County Court Says P2P Illegal File Sharing Does Not Mean Subscriber Did It: But What About Imputed Liability?

By Andis Kaulins

ADVERTISEMENTS


At arstechnica.com Matthew Lasar refers to a problematical case in Court confirms: IP addresses aren't people (and P2P lawyers know it).

His Honour Judge Birss QC points to the obviously trite fact that owning an IP address is not foolproof proof that the subscriber did it, analogizing to the ownership of a printer as no proof that the printer is being used for copyright infringement by the printer owner. Why, "anybody" might have access to that hardware.

However, dear judge, there is the concept of responsibility of ownership, variously referred to in the law as vicarious or imputed liability for ownership negligence. If a car you own is involved in a leaving-the-scene accident, it is generally presumed that the registered owner or designated driver or an authorized agent was the driver, unless it can be proven that someone unauthorized was driving the car or reasonable doubt about the driver exists. If a certain printer or IP address belonging or traceable by possession to you is being used for copyright infringement -- and you did not do it - then who did?

This is a simple problem at law in which the burden of proof should simply be shifted to the the owner or person to whom an IP address is registered, assigned or otherwise traced, who is then responsible for proving who was using it or casting sufficient doubt about the matter to escape an assessment of culpability.

Asking a 3rd party to be able to determine "usage" is nonsense. The law has some obligation to be sensible and to look for the simplest sane solutions.

Hence, we can not support this wayward court decision in any way and would suggest to the legal beagles in England and Wales that they put this matter into better jurisprudential and legislative order.

Full post as published by LawPundit on February 15, 2011 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0139 secs (new cache)