Slashdot Mirror
Florida Judge Rules IP Address Can't Identify a BitTorrent Pirate
An anonymous reader writes "Florida District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro has dismissed a lawsuit brought by Malibu Media against an alleged BitTorrent pirate. Though Malibu Media explained how they geolocated the download site and verified that the IP address was residential rather than a public wifi hotspot, the judge reasoned that the 'Plaintiff has not shown how this geolocation software can establish the identity of the Defendant....Even if this IP address is located within a residence, the geolocation software cannot identify who has access to that residence's computer and who would actually be using it to infringe Plaintiff's copyright.' Judge Ungaro's ruling is not the first of its kind, but it could signal a growing legal trend whereby copyright lawsuits can no longer just hinge on the acquisition of an IP address."
I run a hot spot from my router, open to all.
There has to be a blind squirrel involved somehow.
I'm connected to an ISP in Brisbane, Australia. But my ISP bought a block of IP addresses from someone else so most GeoLocation services tell me I'm sitting somewhere in France.
...and grandparents can breathe easier today.
This is one of those cases where the settlement shakedown, even with the threat of publicly exposing one's porn viewing habits, has failed. Some more here: https://www.eff.org/cases/mali.... Maybe they will eventually give up the cause but I expect the X-Art lawyers to keep going in every other district and jurisdiction while there is still a buck to be extracted.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
I mean of all places florida?
What about Comcast wifi routers that offers hotspots to other Comcast subs with there newer wifi routers being placed at homes. What do they show up as?
IANAL but isn't making the assumption that the registered user of an IP address is responsible for any and all illegal activity that involve that IP address the same kind of leap of logic that you'd make if you assumed that any crime committed with a gun directly implicates the registered owner of said firearm?
You know how this will eventually play out. They'll wind up amending the law to state that whoever the ip address is assigned to is prima facie liable and will have to prove their innocence. Loophole closed.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
You know how this will eventually play out. They'll wind up amending the law to state that whoever the ip address is assigned to is prima facie liable and will have to prove their innocence. Loophole closed.
Not just that, because the pro-privacy/freedom side is just gloating about how they keep getting wins, while the MPAA/RIAA/anti-privacy side is busy lobbying, any eventual amendment will likely be the worst possible amendment, with no input from the pro- side.
You mean, if I were to sneak into your home, and run an ethernet wire to your modem, then attach a wifi router so that I could torrent from down the street, your IP address would definitely pin my activity on you? Cool - I'll be there Friday morning!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
An airtight defense.
The ruling is good. Let's enjoy that.
However, this is a HORRIBLE writeup. It suggests that "...IP-address evidence can't identify the person who actually downloaded the pirated file."
Under current US law:
1. There is no copyright infringement in downloading a file.
2. Files are. They just are. They are not "pirated files."
3. MAKING INFRINGING CONTENT AVAILABLE TO OTHERS is what is considered copyright infringement/distribution. THAT is why an IP address is important... if one SHARES and MAKES AVAILABLE A FILE. It takes a court to determine whether the actions constitute an actionable behavior.
I can't believe Torrentfreak got it wrong. At least they got the headline right. And this is a good ruling.
Hopefully fightcopyrighttrolls.com and dietrolldie.com won't make that mistake.
See it's like someone identifying your car in a crime. Doesn't prove you ere driving.
They didn't identify your car in the crime --- they identified a car that had your license plate on it. Someone else with a nearby/similar vehicle may have been "borrowing" your plate (with or without permission)
You don't understand how torrents work then. Quite a few years ago a group of college students got the RIAA to send take down notices to a campus printer, router and several other pieces of electronics. IP addresses mean absolutely nothing unless you control the entire network from end to end.
I beg to differ.
Please provide a source cite to a statute that indicates the act of "downloading" (feel free to massage as appropriate; I am not splitting hairs) is unlawful.
17 USC 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords...
What you were referring to in your earlier post was the distribution right. That's farther down in the statute:
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
So, yes, you were right that uploading - or distributing copies - is infringement. But you're wrong, in that downloading - or making copies - is also infringement.
For example, check out 17 USC 117, which contains an exception under which copying is not infringement:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
This is a very important exception, because it (1) allows copying from a hard drive to RAM; or (2) copying to a backup drive or CD. But if you don't meet those exceptions, then copying is infringement.
As for the lawyer cited, he isn't a very good lawyer: "Fighting a subpoena that attempts to reveal your identity is a waste of money because you will reveal your identity by fighting it."
Lawyers that give advice on the Internet are not creme de la creme. Lawyers that give incorrect advice less so.
On the other hand, people should never take legal advice about copyright from someone who's apparently never read the copyright act.
No.The car analogy is wrong and stupid here because of wifi. Anyone passing by your house or living near you could crack your wifi and do whatever they want. There is also the possibility that your computer becomes a part of someone's botnet, where they can control it from anywhere in the world.
Also, just because your IP showed up in a torrent swarm doesn't mean you were actually distributing copyrighted materials at all. BitTorrent is not illegal. Downloading is not illegal.
In my country the owner of the ISP account is liable.
Why even bother with a cable. It's not impossible to crack wireless networks.
Sacrilege! The car analogy is always appropriate! Burn the AC Heretic! All we need do is make the analogy more out of this world; if someone 3d printed a copy of your car (license plates included), should you be liable for their crimes with the copy of the vehicle?
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.