Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders Piracy Trial To Test IP Address Evidence
another random user sends word of a case in Pennsylvania District Court in which Judge Michael Baylson has ordered a trial to resolve the issue of whether an IP address can identify a particular person. The plaintiff, Malibu Media, has filed 349 lawsuits against groups of alleged infringers, arguing that getting subscriber information from an ISP based on an IP address that participated in file-sharing was suitable for identification purposes. A motion filed by the defendants in this case explains "how computer-based technology would allow non-subscribers to access a particular IP address," leading Judge Baylson to rule that a trial is "necessary to find the truth."
"The Bellwether trial will be the first time that actual evidence against alleged BitTorrent infringers is tested in court. This is relevant because the main piece of evidence the copyright holders have is an IP-address, which by itself doesn't identify a person but merely a connection. ... Considering what's at stake, it would be no surprise if parties such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are willing to join in. They are known to get involved in crucial copyright troll cases, siding with the defendants. We asked the group for a comment, but have yet to receive a response. On the other side, Malibu Media may get help from other copyright holders who are engaged in mass-BitTorrent lawsuits. A ruling against the copyright holder may severely obstruct the thus far lucrative settlement business model, meaning that millions of dollars are at stake for these companies. Without a doubt, the trial is expected to set an important precedent for the future of mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the U.S. One to watch for sure."
If DNA can, why not IP? Is this a question of fact or law?
They can defend against this and finally put an end to all the crazy lawsuits
An IP address will identify a connection, that someone is responsible for.
There is plenty of cases of Person A committing a crime or getting into an accident, using something from Person B, and Person B getting into trouble as a result.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
That is the ultimate ruling that will result from this. Don't delude yourself into thinking it will end any other way.
oh god i sure as hell hope my VPN provider doesn't respnd to legal threats.
wait, was i even connected?
oh god
An IP address can _help_ positively identify a person. :) ).
;).
It can definitely negatively identify a person - if the public IP is different it wasn't you doing it (assuming you weren't using that public IP
If the download was made by the IP of your internet connection at that time, then it's evidence that something using your connection was doing the downloading. If they find other corroborating evidence that it's you - e.g. the downloaded file is on your computer, in your personal folders, shows up in your download history, the computer is not normally shared, there's no malware or remote control software, then it's likely to be downloaded by you.
But an IP sure isn't sufficient alone in itself. The **AA probably want it to be like a car license plate in certain countries - where if a camera takes a picture of a car breaking a traffic speed limit, that has the same plate as your car, looks like your car, then they expect you to either pay the (usually smaller) fine or identify the person responsible so that they can do it. Or challenge it in court and pay the full fine.
However in this case they want huge fines and the fines to go to them
Given the fact that wi-fi is so predominant these days and the fact that several access points are left unsecured as well as the fact that any particular access point routes to one of a number of IP addresses belonging to the same subscriber, an IP address is not a reliable way of determining who actually downloaded things illegally.
I have been a captive in America my entire life. Everybody and everything uses customary units instead of metric.
It's a bit like finding the get away car for the bank job in your house and all the neighbors agree you use it to drive to work.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
IF this spells the death of the It's-your-ip-so-that-means-you-did-it argument, then I can see Tor exit-node hosting becoming a lot more popular in the USA. On the other hand, if it is not, then ...
Sent from my ENIAC
This isn't the smoking gun you might be thinking it is. Until now, most piracy claims have been prosecuted under the idea that infringement must be willful. In other words, the prosecution has to prove intent. If you accidentally download, or stumble home late one night and while fumbling for the lights, happen to push the "download 300 gigabytes of copyrighted porn" button, intent is not satisfied. Of course, it's pretty hard to prove intent looking at network traffic -- how can you tell the difference between an action initiated by a human, and an action initiated by a computer program? Even if you can prove it's a human, can you prove which one? Digital forensics is still in its infancy, and it has clear and compelling limitations.
That's why, (drum roll please), we have crimes of strict liability. For example, possession of stolen property. Doesn't matter if you knew it was stolen. Doesn't matter if you checked all the registries for stolen products, the serial numbers -- there is simply no defense in cases of strict liability. It was found on your person or on your property and ta-da, guilty. I'll let someone with a more legal background get into why this is bad if they want in a reply, but short answer: Yes, it's abused. No, it won't stop anytime soon. This is what file sharing is moving towards -- you no longer have to prove intent, the act itself is now grounds to throw you in prison or fine you more than acts of major depravity, terrorism, murder, etc., would net you. Again, not how strict liability was sold when it came out, but that's how the way the doughnut's rolling these days.
What I'm getting at is that IP addresses might legally become evidence that the account holder did it... or it may not. But either way, it's still probable cause to search your computer, person, property, etc., and if they find ye ole pirate treasure, you're going to be just as screwed. And as a bonus, if you encrypt it or otherwise protect it from being searched, odds are good they'll tack on additional criminal charges as well, or simply hold you in contempt of court, which means indefinite jail time without appeal, trial, etc., for failing to surrender the encryption keys... even if you can prove a sudden case of total amnesia and are now a glorified vegetable who's main mode of communication is drool, you might still be rotting in jail the rest of your life.
God bless America.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Dude, you've been nailed. Stop hoping and praying that the EFF is going to come riding to the rescue. Coming up with wild hypotheticals that BIG MEDIA(tm) is going to persecute you isn't going to help.
Time to start squeezing Jury Nullification pamphlets into every bit-torrent file. Hmm. There's an idea; can anyone whip up a Jury Nullification badge for websites?
It can't identify a specific person. At all. The pigeonhole principle proves it irrefutably, since there are 4 billion possible IP's, but roughly 7 billion people on the planet. It is therefore impossible for an IP to uniquely identify an individual.
Although admittedly that particular argument isn't valid for IPv6... it's still true for a vast majority of IP addresses right now. Even under IPv6, however, it will probably still be the case unless (or until) we start directly associating unique IP's with particular people regardless of what kind of device they are utilizing, you still won't be able to associate an IP address with a particular person. At best, you can get only the subscriber who leased that IP. This may or may not be the individual, but an argument can be made (one that I don't fully agree with, but can see some valid reasoning behind) that a subscriber could be held accountable for activities on his or her subscription that they ought to have had the ability to supervise and approve of.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Well,it's very good.I quite agree with your point of view. http://www.saleukwatches.com/
The IP is the car.. yes, someone owns the car or might be responsible for the car at a particular time, but they may or may not be driving it.
hahaha, f**k you tards... the world couldn't care less for your pathetic broken legal/patent/copyright system... enjoy your own crap... lol
ISP have messed up ip tracking as well metering so what a ISP says may not hold up in court.
There lot's of old cases of that hear on Slashdot.
but a IP can be like take any car in the row and they don't do that good of a job of keeping records on who had what car. Also replace car with say a group of seats that can be used my more then one person. Poor analogy but think of it like this you are paying for X space (bandwidth) and you can use it all on your own or others can also use open space at the same time.
OK... so there are plenty of posts here outlining that using IP addresses as evidence is extremely unreliable at best.
MAC's can be spoofed; networks can be hacked, then there's DHCP and NAT etc etc etc.
Honest question: Given that there are this many holes in putting forward an IP address as proof of illegal downloading/copyright infringement WHY THE FUCK isn't it laughed out of court??
I can only think of 2 options:
1. The judiciary have no clue about these issues and are not being educated on them - if so, why aren't they making it their business to understand these pitfalls?
2. THe legal system prefers to just push all responsibility for network security onto generally clueless service owners - if so, why aren't these innocents presenting this apparently basic information to court?
THis situation is just so moronic that I'm struggling to believe it is actually happening.
Hej! Nasi tu byli!
they won't need to subpoena the ISP's logs anymore because your IPv6 address identifies the household that where the connection originated.
What remains is the open WiFi defense, so expect them to legislate against it. You will be liable for your wireless router like you're liable for your firearms.
Well,it's very good.I quite agree with your point of view. http://www.saleukwatches.com/
Judge Michael Baylson, eh? Something seems..... off.
Apparently he knows how to trace somebody from their IP address... LOL.
In parts of the US, if your car is used in a drugs crime, you are responsible. You can go to jail for someone borrowing your car to buy a joint.
Is that right or wrong? It is the law and the law is made by politicians who are elected by the people. And the people are NOT you nor the people on the internet forum you visit.
The people are an unseen group who do all the things that are uncool and out of date and they make up the rules of society, NOT to benefit some teen who thinks he knows how the world should run but to the benefit of them, or so they think.
The war on drugs was introduced by politicians who got re-elected. The war on copyright pretty much the same. Yes, this does show democracy sucks donkey balls for doing the "right" thing. It also shows that what is the "right" thing, no two people can agree upon.
It will be intresting to see how this case goes. From precedent, it could go either way.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It seems the solution would be to use reaver or aircrack-ng to demonstrate the concept to the judge. If he doesn't believe, do it to his home router and download away. It won't be your fault. You were not in charge of that ip.
a trial is "necessary to find the truth." ???
Wouldn't an experiment or a demonstration be more in order?
Or is that what the trial is to consist of?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
I dont know anyone who has not used an IP that was not his.
Given the fact that wi-fi is so predominant these days and the fact that several access points are left unsecured as well as the fact that any particular access point routes to one of a number of IP addresses belonging to the same subscriber, an IP address is not a reliable way of determining who actually downloaded things illegally.
Well, there will be a law introduced in the next two years that makes having an insecure wireless access point a crime (not a misdemeanor). Watch.