Am I missing something? I don't believe I have ever read anything by Bennet before, but this guy's argument is awful. None of the points he makes actually address the issues at hand. The two that pop out to me are:
1. Open wireless network, hacker, etc, IE you didn't download any infringing material and someone else used your IP. The judge argues this:
"Moreover, VPR ignores the fact that IP subscribers are not necessarily copyright infringers."
Bennet responds with:
"Well, true — the assignee of the IP address might not be the actual copyright infringer. But, more generally, being named as a defendant in a lawsuit does not mean that you're at fault anyway — that's what the trial is for."
So, once again, am I missing something or did he just agree with the main point of Judge Baker's entire argument? If the IP addy might not be the actual infringer and we in this country are supposedly innocent until proven guilty then the entire case should be thrown out. "Being named as a defendant in a lawsuit does not mean that you're at fault anyway." Really? How many people who have been wrongly accused of downloading child porn or something equally heinous only for the cops to say, "Oops". This of course leads to the second tenet of the arguement:
"Could expedited discovery be used to wrest quick settlements, even from people who have done nothing wrong? The embarrassment of public exposure might be too great, the legal system too daunting and expensive, for some to ask whether VPR has competent evidence to prove its case."
And then Bennet responds, agreeing with him once again.
"Now these are actually all fair points. The logical error is that they apply to any lawsuit — Judge Baker makes no argument why these problems would be more pronounced in a lawsuit against 1,000 John Does."
So in the end he agreed with Judge Baker's two main points (that support the rest of his argument). What am I missing?
