This paper questions the notion that a dynamic IP address coupled with a timestamp reliably identifies an alleged infringer. Ms. Deyhimy sees the same problems with the “business model” of copyright trolls as we discuss daily in this blog:
A great number of these Doe defendants would testify under oath that in fact they did not download and have no knowledge of the allegedly unlawful download using their respective dynamic IP addresses. The specter of substantial legal expenses in defense of a proceeding away from home, however, often militates towards an agreement to pay between $1,000 and $3,500, to purchase freedom from prosecution of the case against them.
While a few of this blog’s commenters admit that they indeed shared the files in question, the majority are saying something like: “What is going on here? I haven’t done anything and I’m getting these threatening letters. Can somebody help me?” The high collateral damage rate inherent in the current state of the Internet technology has always been the main concern of my postings (needless to say that I myself was caught in the crossfire and asked the same question). Most of my articles reiterate the same thought: the “business model” built on a questionable evidence and incentive to pay settlements regardless of the guilt is nauseous to say the least.
Thankfully, more and more attention is being paid to the sleazy methods utilized by a handful of greedy attorneys, who inflict tremendous harm on the reputation of legal profession. Given another big problem with copyright trolling — inequality of arms — it is especially nice to see that IT professionals and copyright attorneys loudly voice their concerns.
In my opinion, if you file a motion to quash, referencing this article can bolster your position.