Thank you UK Bob, and yes you make good points, but I already appreciated much of what you said. To restate things a little more clearly, let me try asking again!

IP address... yes I realise what that is, and that it can be static or dynamic (broadband usually static, dialup usually dynamic, but not always - isp dependent, and even static IP addresses change from time to time unless you pay the ISP for a specific and static address - eg for a company ftp site etc).

ISP's reporting their own clients.... I hope they really are not, since it is their role to provide the connection and not to get involved apart from maintenance issues etc. Analogy.. a car maker provides a vehicle but has nothing to do with it's use, legal or otherwise.

Family computer.... well, in the case of a minor, I suppose the responsible adult is the person to whom they would turn, and yet, parents of vandals are not held to account for damage to private property in the UK are they? Seems a bit unfair, however, what about (as in my case) a situation where there are four people all over the age of 18 and only one is paying for the ISP... surely that one person cannot be held to legal account for the actions of the others? Going back to my original example of a speeding photograph, the car owner cannot be held responsible for the actions of anyone else driving the car, nor, under human rights legislation, can he or she be forced to reveal WHO was driving (this is true!).

Human Rights (context of confidentiality) ... I see your point. So this means that ISP's only reveal subscriber details on production of a court order? Fair point, but again, surely the granting of a court order is, in the first place, a breach of human rights and would be a good defence in court - after all, the first element of a successful case is to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - and where it is impossible to pinpoint the exact offender, it is not legally sound to just shrug your shoulders and say "well, he's the bloke paying the monthly ISP costs, so lets bag him". Or am I missing something here (tongue in cheek but you get my point?).

Let me know what you think, it looks like the music industry is flexing its muscle a bit just now, in the UK and maybe it is a good time to do a stockcheck on what we can do to protect ourselves from indiscriminate and sudden legal action.

By the way, did you notice on that program you mentioned, they had a representative of the music industry to whom they first made the point, in a question, "why are CD's so expensive in the UK in comparison to every other country? if they were priced reasonably nobody would be bothering to look at free downloads anyway"

Did you think his reply "it is to protect the market model" sounded a bit suss? I thought it was bloody ridiculous, but thats impetuous me! ;-)

Ross.