http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/songs-of-inn... highlights some other confused responses.
It seems they need SOMETHING that ties it to me. What if it was my sister? Or my mother? They have evidence that links me to the crime but the same evidence links several other people to the same degree. Is that really a "preponderance of evidence"?
It seems at most they could use the IP to get a search warrant and look through the computers to try to find some actual evidence.
Besides, is it really a crime to download a movie when they don't know if any of it was actually saved? Just because the bits were sent down the pipe doesn't mean that I received them. It's as if someone reading a book to me makes me liable for copyright infringement on the presumption that I must have been writing down what was read.
Yes. You'd defend yourself by providing evidence as to who was actually driving it at the time. So, for instance, if your car is seen fleeing the scene of an accident, but you reported it stolen the day before, you would have a defense. Or if your sister admitted to driving your car, but then she'd be on the hook.
"It seems they need SOMETHING that ties it to me. What if it was my sister?"
There is: you're the account holder for the broadband account that was downloading the movie. That is something. And it doesn't link several other people 'to the same degree'. If you have logs on your router that how it was your sister's computer on the router that was uploading the movie, then so be it.
"It seems at most they could use the IP to get a search warrant and look through the computers to try to find some actual evidence."
This is what they will do if you don't settle.
"Besides, is it really a crime to download a movie when they don't know if any of it was actually saved?"
This is why people should not play lawyer: the charges (for every instance I'm aware of, and certainly the popular USCG cases) are for illegal distribution, not illegal download.
A-ha. So then downloading is fine, then? That certainly makes more sense to me.
The "hacked wireless modem" (the term by the way makes me assume you're not hardcore) defence is good, but they don't care about that. By the time you hire a lawyer and get your shit together they'll have met their goal: stopping you from pirating their IP.
I know this is part of the strategy of "Big Media", but the real solution is for the content producers to self publish (since the middle man takes too much of a cut and isn't providing the value they used to (i.e. trucking your CD to the store))
However, this doesn't justify that the content producer doesn't get paid if you pirate shit. In the long run I expect prices to drip and content producers to increase profits, but that's still a few years away.
And, how is it determined the infringer has downloaded enough of the file to infringe?
Due process still exists.
Also, depending on your state, you can file suit against the law firm for defamation.