I hate to admit it, but I signed up for a few courses at some MOOCs and never did even one lesson of some of those courses. I signed up thinking it would be awesome to learn the subject I signed up for, but then when it came to the time to do it, I didn't have the time to do it. That being said, I know that if I'd paid for the course, then I definitely would've done the courses or given more thought before deciding on whether I could do the course. The way it's all currently set up, you don't have to give any thought to it before signing up besides being excited, because if you change your mind later or if you can't do it later, then you don't lose anything for it.
That being the case, I think MOOC's should charge a small fee from everyone who signs up. Maybe $10-$100, depending on the course. When the student finishes, they either get all the money back or they get a percentage back. Then the student has something to lose, and will be sure to put more effort into the course and make people really think before signing up.
Rolling the stones as huge cylinders would've been cool but they used water to wet the sand, which reduced friction. There's even some hieroglyphs that show it being done. Was big news back in the spring. See:
I think the example I gave above, along with the questions it raises about the "evidence" against me, would be easy enough for any non-technical minded jury to grasp. Those questions, really make it clear that anybody could've done it. Basically, if there's just 3 people who had access to my internet account, then the likelyhood of any single individual being the one who did it, is only 33%, not 100% or even 50%. Therefore, it's more unlikely that said individual downloaded the copyrighted material, than it is likely they did it.
By the time the prosecution gets a search warrant to comb through all the files on all the devices, the downloaded copyrighted material could have been moved to another device or hard drive. If they finds signs that it existed on one of the devices & no longer exists, the defendant can claim they downloaded the file but it wasn't what they wanted or that they decided not to keep it, so they deleted it. That wouldn't be much different than buying something from Walmart & returning it to get your money back. Even better, it's like a thief who walks out of a store with something, but then returns it to the shelf before anyone busts him. Even if he's noticed on security camera's after the fact, they can't legally make you pay for something you're not keeping or using.
So the case against an individual is so weak that even preponderance isn't really a problem. In fact, it just wouldn't be worth the money it costs to try to fight it in court. For argument's sake though, imagine Rightscorp & the ISP's did allow cases like these to be brought to court and they win a lot of them. The moment ONE of them ends with the defendant being innocent, it creates a precedent. That'd be their worst nightmare, and they do NOT want to risk that happening. The gig would be up, forever.
I'd really love to see them do this to somebody who takes them to court for it. Rightscorp and the ISP will have to prove the guilty party is the account owner. If they can't, then they still have to prove who the guilty party is, and make them pay. It's called burden of proof. This company is simply attempting to circumvent the U.S. legal system because in most cases, they won't be able to prove who was downloading the copyrighted material.
The problem is rooted in the fact that an IP address is not the same as an individual. Take for example, a household of Dad, Mom, and two children. Which device in the house was used to download the copyrighted material? Which individual was using that device at the time? How does anyone know if maybe a family friend was visiting and used the device? Is it possible that a trojan or other malware was on the device and did it without any user consent? The company would have to be able to prove which individual was using the device that was downloading the material at the time it was downloaded, and probably need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was downloaded with the user's consent. Determining all that, is next to impossible in almost all the cases.
Rightscorp & The ISP's case, is very weak if anyone challenges it.
"People should have access to the data which you have about them. There should be a process for them to challenge any inaccuracies." -- Arthur Miller