[shawty]

Originally Posted by photodude

Case would fail because the respondent was not the down-loader, or authorising another to download. They authorised a third party to use their connection to the net, not to breach copyrights. You can not be punished, fined, charged or found guilty for the actions of a third party. Even if they knew/asked them to do it, the only charge/offence would be solicitation

Downloading is a gray area. The act of downloading is not a breach of copyrights, unless you distribute. However, by downloading, you are allowing another to breach copyrights. In the case of p2p networks, you both download and share at the same time, thus breaching copyrights in the share aspect of your action.

Kymmy, it's this simple. The respondent is the person named by VM to Davenport Lyons, and the person named in the claim. If their kids (or who ever) downloaded it without their knowledge, they can claim no knowledge of the download. Remote trojan access downloading the file is another one, and it's one that is already being put to Davenport Lyons
These may be of interest too:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/03/28/uk_share_hunt/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Briti...ls-92488.shtml
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/12...file_sharers/1

Downloading IS in breach of copyright if what you are downloading has a copyright on it, it is as simple as that. You would be downloading something you do not own the rights to and have not paid for. Downloading in this manner is theft, whatever way you look at it. Theft from who is is irrelvant.