If you or one of your office users is blatantly using an account to download movies and films, that's one thing. But what remains unclear is exactly how copyright holders will determine whether they think their copyright-protected content has been illegally accesses or shared.

During the RIAA's litigation campaign, many people were wrongly sued when hackers hijacked users' IP addresses. It is thus likely that hijacked IP addresses associated with file sharing will erroneously fall in the line of fire.

Proving that a subscriber account was not used for illegal file sharing when issued a court summons was difficult in the past. Those accused usually paid lawyers fees or damages of a few thousand dollars for those who did not contest the damages as a remedy. However, for many small businesses, a disruption in Internet access would mean nothing less than the end of their business, which is certainly more costly than paying a few thousand dollars to settle legal claims, whether they are erroneous or not.

2. Time and Expense to Respond

A small business that erroneously receives a warning letter will have to devote time and resources to contest the claim. According to the Center for Copyright Information, subscribers can pay $35 for an "independent review" if they feel they are wrongly accused. However, besides placing the future of your company's Internet access in the hands of a supposed independent review committee, what kind of evidence will those wrongly accused have to gather? A small business owner already working 80 hours a week might not be able to squeeze the extra resources required to prove a negative--which, as in criminal law, is harder than proving a positive--that an account was not used for illegal file sharing.