Slashdot Mirror
California Judge Denies Discovery In Bittorrent Case
New submitter PhxBeau writes with news of a particularly sane judge in a copyright case. Quoting TorrentFreak: "In yet another mass lawsuit against alleged file-sharers, a California court has said that while it's sympathetic towards the plight of the copyright holder, it will not assist in the identification of BitTorrent users. It's a shame technology that enables infringement has outpaced technology that prevents it, the judge wrote, but added that his court won't work with copyright holders who pursue settlement programs with no intention to litigate."
The core issue is that an IP does not identify more than the bill-payer — the good cause standard therefore is not met because the actual infringer is not identified.
The core issue is that an IP does not identify more than the bill payer — the good cause standard therefore is not met because the actual infringer is not identified.
I think this is sane. And with a decision like this, we can extend it to cover terrorists, child porn collectors and other criminals. Because IP does not identify more than the bill player and the good cause standard therefore is not met because the actual infringer is not identified.
A Judge with a brain!? A heretic I say!
his court won't work with copyright holders who pursue settlement programs
And this is how it should be.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
And a license plate does not identify more than the vehicle owner. Bang into somebody's car and you're off scot free as long as the only information they have is your license plate number. This judge is clearly a genius!
The core issue is that an IP does not identify more than the bill payer -- the good cause standard therefore is not met because the actual infringer is not identified.
That would depend on the terms of service. If your broadband provider holds you responsible for the users you permit on to your connection, then a part of that responsibility would seem to be knowing who is using your connection and when. If the TOS allow you to give connections away to third parties anonymously (like the coffee shop I'm sitting in now does), then I'd agree with the above statement.
I wish they (the court) would have emphasized the denial based upon the use of the courts as an empty threat and/or means of discovery for the subsequent pursuit of a private settlement. In other words, once you approach the court to do your dirty work, you've got to use them to mediate the settlement*. If you want to settle privately, hire your own detective agency. P>*Which gets you reasonable and uniform penalties and makes settlements a matter of public record.
Have gnu, will travel.
*BSD but FrreB_SD
It was only a matter of time until a judge became too fed up with these fishing expeditions.
An IP number isn't even vaguely comparable to a license number. These IP numbers are taken from IP packets that could be written by anyone, anywhere. They are comparable to addresses on envelopes in the US Mail, except that there's no handwriting to analyze and no authoritative cancellation mark to identify the general location.
Anyone can write any IP number in the sender field on any IP packet and send it to any other IP number.
Even if you establish that a particular ISP has assigned a particular IP number for routing packets to a particular customer, you have no evidence that a packet marked with that IP number has anything to do with that customer, unless you can get much more stringent information from router logs and/or content that only that customer could have produced. I've never heard of any such evidence being presented.
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
In case I wasn't explicit enough: an IP number may be intended to indicate a particular "bill payer," but the presence of a particular "bill payer's" IP number on a packet is not evidence that the "bill payer" was in any way, directly or indirectly, associated with the creation of that packet.
And it's not clear at all from the reports whether the IP numbers in question were taken from packets supposed to have originated from that address, or from packets sent to that address. In the latter case, this is just like junk mail addressed to me---I do not take responsibility for it.
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
I think the naysayers here are emphasizing the wrong point. According to the summary(cause no one RTFA) This judge wont assist the copyright holders who insist on settlement programs. These guys arent going after Joe Schmoe. They're stuffing mailboxes in Everytown, USA and hoping scared people just settle. Its a racket
No but unless you can prove that you did not voluntarily provide your car you can be charged with "aiding and abetting" and or Conspiracy to Commit %CRIME% so you still go to Club Fed anyway.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Yup, because people run around forging IP address packets in bulk for torrents all the time just for giggles. You might be able to sell line that to a jury if they were lobotomized beforehand.
Aside from that, forging an IP doesn't let you have a two way conversation because all responses get routed to the IP that you forged. A wireshark trace of some IP chatting happily with the tracker and seeds/leeches is pretty damn good evidence that you've got the right IP.
Sure, it doesn't *prove* anything. But even the most technically illiterate jury is going to agree that the bill payer's is going to be the right person to start asking really pointed questions.
Best way to close the loophole is legislation to make the bill payer responsible for activity from his/her IP, torrenting, bot net, you name it. Shuts down some legitimate uses but will clean up the ole 'net quite a bit.
I'd like to see a law passed that says that if you're running a residential wireless hotspot and don't take reasonable precautions to keep strangers from borrowing it you're automatically responsible for all packets originating from your IP address. No exceptions, no excuses.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The day they pass that law is the day I shutdown my guest network. Until then, fuck yourself.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
In Germany, courts have ruled this way, and I believe this is the same in the US
I know of these actual cases where the Internet access of someone was used by someone else without permission.
1) Stolen Wifi, either unprotected or hacked.
2) Multiple family members, one connection. Who downloaded what?
3) Stolen wired access: An unauthorized cable was plugged into a switch, giving the thief connectivity.
4) Unauthorized access point: A rogue access point was installed and hidden so the thief could connect from nearby without the need for an actual cable.
5) Variations of 3 and 4 where the evidence was removed before discovery.
Bottom line - you cannot assume that 1 IP = 1 person without a serious investigation. An remember that 1 and 5 has no evidence left behind so the only evidence is the *lack* of traces on all devices with authorized access.
There are many ways to steal Internet access and you need to investigate BEFORE making accusations.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --