Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
You just made up your own meaning for the word proof, funny....
When you mass sue, you're doing it individually, you're just filing it all at once, it's not like they did a class action lawsuit against the people.
You do not need access to the computer to prove the person pirated, that's just silly. At that, if it was needed, it would be after the case started, thus they had proof and need more.
This case is not about them mass suing, it's about the misconduct of the action, related to them going after innocent people, without 'any' proof or the evidence they did have, was bogus - so they couldn't back it up.
|
when you group everyone together, grabbing ip address and then sending letters to all those people demanding money
you can't help but catch innocent people in that dragnet.
the misconduct is a consequence of mass suing.
if they handled each case one at a time, collected the evidence FIRST and then went forward you don't extort money from innocent people.
it was the order that was the problem
1. get ip address
2. ****
3. send out letter demanding payment
4. sue people who didn't pay
it the skipping over the getting proof that they actually commited the crime (#2) was the problem.