Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Florida Judge Rules IP Address Can't Identify a BitTorrent Pirate

Posted by Unknown on from the you-are-number-74.110.69.73 dept.

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."

13 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. A competent Judge in Florida? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There has to be a blind squirrel involved somehow.

  2. GeoLocation is not evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:GeoLocation is not evidence by anubi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I try to log anything going through my system, I get all sorts of activity that I have no earthly idea what it is... but if I block it, there will be some app that suddenly stops working.

      I am reticent to block all activity except for known ports, as a lot of today's software requires me to run the stuff open so they can communicate with their home base.

      I would be in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act if I were to reverse engineer the code to find out exactly what they wanted. So, in accordance of my understanding of the Terms of Compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was bought by the Copyright Holders, I run my wireless nodes that pass information subject to softwares governed by the DMCA wide open. I do not attempt to monitor, reverse engineer, or try to "break their codes". Like watching activity on the street, its not my issue with what other people are doing. Its been my experience that interfering in other people's doings is not very healthful.

      The Copyright Industry has fought long and hard, spending countless resources to have law passed that makes ignorance of how one's stuff works as a condition of lawful compliance with their terms and conditions. We are now getting a lawfully compliant population who leaves every port on their system open because some copyright holder might want to use that port, closing it will cause the system to malfunction. Troubleshooting and repairing the malfunction is now defined by our Congress as being in violation of Copyright Law.

      For my critical stuff, which I have not signed away any rights, I can still communicate securely, but for the commercial stuff, which I agreed to leave access wide open, I comply.

      But as far as my wireless access points...

      I HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEA WHAT IS GOING THROUGH IT.

      Nor, do I feel I am lawfully allowed to know.

      As far as I am concerned, I am running a public toilet.

      Anyone is welcome as long as they don't come in and make a mess.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    2. Re:GeoLocation is not evidence by vux984 · · Score: 4

      But it's still that guy's subscription...

      So? If you use my golf clubs to beat a homeless man, that's on you, not me.

      such activity still can violate the TOS of the ISP... and regardless of who was doing it, it can still be reasonably grounds for termination of service.

      The service contract with the ISPs is at the ISPs discretion. 3rd parties can't dictate what the ISP does with your service.

      If somebody was actually doing this without authorization and without his knowledge, then the person will hopefully take something positive from the experience and learn how to properly secure their own network so that it doesn't happen again.

      Or better still he will continue to refuse to bow down to silly oppressive tactics, and will do what he wants with his wifi, instead of cowering in fear.

  3. X-Art Shakedown Failing? by GumphMaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  4. Sudden outbreak of common sense? by halfEvilTech · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean of all places florida?

  5. What about comcast wifi that offers hotspots to ot by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  6. Don't get too excited. by xigxag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:That needed a judge? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  8. Ruling good. STORY WRONG. by gavron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:car analogy? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

  10. Re:That needed a judge? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:That needed a judge? by kthreadd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why even bother with a cable. It's not impossible to crack wireless networks.