well of course there is, the bpi have no statutory investigatory powers. just because they collected the evidence doesn't mean that it is admissible. that's usually the job of the police in criminal proceedings.
look at it this way, it's like some random bloke taking photos of your car parked on a double yellow line and then sending the photo to the police.
what's to say the evidence wasn't tampered with? what is to say it wasn't your car, it was a cloned plate?
my point being to have an industry body collecting 'evidence' almost certainly is not admissible in court, and if it is, it sets a very dangerous precedent.
there is no way to guarantee that you are responsible for the downloading, there are many different ways the 'evidence' could be manipulated, for instance, somebody could just have installed utorrent to download a linux distribution and for a couple of minutes, completely by accident share their mp3 folder. possible. did they commit an act of distribution? and that's not to mention all the other defences one could employ such as script kiddies and somebody else using your wireless connection.
it's a grey area and i just hope plusnet doesn't get involved in this.
