Slashdot Mirror
Judge Dismisses Movie Piracy Case, IP-Address Doesn't Prove Anything (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: In what's believed to be a first of its kind ruling, a federal court in Oregon has dismissed a direct infringement complaint against an alleged movie pirate from the outset. According to the judge, linking an IP-address to a pirated download is not enough to prove direct copyright infringement. In the Oregon District Court, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman recently recommended dismissal of a complaint filed by the makers of the Adam Sandler movie The Cobbler. According to the Judge both claims of direct and indirect infringement were not sufficient for the case to continue. What's unique in this case, is that the direct infringement claims were dismissed sua sponte, which hasn't happened before. To prove direct infringement copyright holders merely have to make it "plausible" that a defendant, Thomas Gonzales in this case, is indeed the copyright infringer. This is traditionally done by pointing out that the IP-address is directly linked to the defendant's Internet connection, for example. However, according to Judge Beckerman this is not enough. In response to community backlash, Oculus has decided to change its DRM policy (again) to allow HTC Vive games to play on the Oculus Rift virtual-reality system.
How the fuck is old news regarding DRM on VR systems related to this case?
Is it just me, or does this last sentence have nothing to do with the rest of the post or topic? It doesn't appear in the article either.
The case was likely dismissed on grounds of questionable sanity.
No one in their right mind would even bother stealing that movie.
In response to community backlash, Slashdot stops posting unrelated stories at the bottom of new stories.
Discovers there's room for that sort of crap on the right, underneath "Sourceforge Top Downloads".
The Judge should have jailed both parties, one for defending an Adam Sandler movie, the other for even knowing about the Adam Sandler movie. And then the judge should have jailed herself for giving public attention to an Adam Sandler movie.
As much as I disagree with the copyright system across the globe, and would be a hypocrite to say downloading is wrong.
Surely the judge has got it wrong here? If this sentence is true "To prove direct infringement copyright holders merely have to make it "plausible" that a defendant, Thomas Gonzales in this case, is indeed the copyright infringer." then the IP address linked to the defendant's contract with the ISP is surely "plausible"?
If a custom painted car used in a bank robbery is caught on film, and later found in your garage with matching plates, and it is liscened to you and driven by you on a daily basis, it seems like this might be relevant. Yes it is possible someone could have stolen it for a while and returned it without any signs it was stolen. But it seems like it's still pretty good evidence to build a case on.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I downloaded this movie a few days ago, but it turned out to be a movie called Gay Sex With Hats On. This was the day homosexuals saved my life and my brain cells. I shall forever be in a debt of gratitude towards them for this.
Someone is bad at multitasking. One article at a time mates.
The link above states some very good reasons why the judge acted this way and there are some unique circumstances in the case that prompted her decision. The defendant runs an adult care center where the IP address is associated and the plaintiffs knew this. The judge ruled that there are a variety of people who could have infringed the copyright other than the defendant (ie. family members, staff, adult residents at the center) and despite fully knowing this, the plaintiffs chose to insist that the defendant was the only possible person who could have downloaded the movie and they used the IP address as "proof". The judge basically said it's not proof of anything and they're acting in bad faith by insisting that it is proof so she issued her ruling. It's possible that better behavior by the attorneys could have led to a filing that she would have accepted so we shouldn't conclude from this that this necessarily means going forward that these types of lawsuits won't be effective any more.
The real reason this was dismissed is because a claim of copyright against "The Cobbler" is farcical on its face. Nobody would want to pirate that movie.
He torrented the movie...he's getting in trouble for uploading. Downloading is not a crime.
> and it is liscened to you and driven by you on a daily basis
Liscened? That's just... obscene!
Was he downloading porn? With a car? Ewww
Almost everybody uses TCP/IP. But it's nice to see a judge that has some knowledge in the field.
So we are talking about piracy and IP addresses and such and then we get to talk about DRM on Oculus?
Is this like adding a law to another law to get it pushed through. Although legal, it is pretty immoral.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
What does a movie piracy ruling in the courts have to do with the Occulus DRM policy changes?
Even if it is plausible, plausibility isn't the standard for a tort conviction. The standard is "preponderance", or "balance of probabilities", or "more likely than not", or 51 percent probability. If your access point has three or more users, the probability drops to one-third or less unless the copyright owner can show more evidence that you performed the infringement.
You are not correct on two fronts. IP spoofing is a common tactic for hiding one's identity on the Internet. If an IP showing in logs was enough to prove guilt, how about we give your IP to a Botnet and let them DOS something, like the Pentagon, masquerading with that IP. Would you be okay with the IP in logs being held as the gospel truth when you are facing multiple felonies and a long prison sentence?
The second front you are incorrect on, is that in Western justice systems one is assumed innocent. Not that we always practice that theory, but that the theory is built into things like the US Constitution. Again, put the shoe on your own foot. I'm sure we could come up with countless scenarios where you are a plausible criminal. Driving to work makes it plausible that you committed vehicular homicide. Would you like to be brought up charges for every time you have driven your car?
One thing I no longer see with any regularity is what I mentioned twice. Putting the proverbial shoe on your own foot. One should practice it all the times.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
--BeauHD.
-1. Offtopic.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Everything.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
If you have to post your resumé to make a point on /. then you've already lost.
OB Resumé thing: Yeah, I have that same experience, so we probably know of each other. Say hi to Nate or Dave for me.
When stopped for a moving violation in a car, the DRIVER is responsible. The OWNER doesn't get the citation; the DRIVER DOES.
VPNs don't necessarily require a user-entered password, can be bought and used automatically
without the user "entering authentication" (other than installing the initial file containing credentials),
include site-to-site VPNs that don't have per-user credentials, but most importantly to THIS discussion
PROVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because:
The DRIVER of the Internet connection is the USER. The OWNER of the IP address is the ISP (or their ISP etc.) and they
lease it out to the CUSTOMER. The failure of these lawsuits is to link the CUSTOMER (car owner in the analogy) to the
USER (car driver in the analogy).
Having VPNs doesn't change the fundamental aspect that copyright trolls want the court to overlook:
The USER of the IP address is whom they want, but the OWNER of the IP address is whom they go after.
The more courts that wake up to this, the better.
E
Judge Harold Baker, US3, C.D. Ill, VPR Internationale v Does 1-1017
(Contemporary story at https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=22899 )
I totally agree with you. One semantic point however:
When stopped for a moving violation in a car, the DRIVER is responsible. The OWNER doesn't get the citation; the DRIVER DOES.
If you're caught by a speed or red light camera, the registered owner is the one sent the citation.
The real question is who the hell wants to watch an Adam Sandler movie?
While the words in your sentence are accurate, the behavior of RLC owners isn't exactly a beacon of legal compliance.
Right, along with the photo that caught them, which will show who was driving at the time. If it wasn't them, they can very simply prove that "owner" != "driver" by going to court and holding the photo up next to their own face. Also, those citations are sent by the private company that operated the cameras on behalf of the city they operate in and are representative of civil infractions, not serious crimes that can ruin someone's life; the burden of evidence is much lower.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
When Netflix started to block my IPv4 address, I checked out its reputation and found all kinds of services associated with it that I never ran. Netflix didn't care. Since Netflix treated me not as a paying customer, but presumed suspicion on behalf of the MPAA, I fired it and don't care myself. There's healthy competition out there.
Everything. And nothing.
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
Remember, Google is your friend.
You can't be a pirate without a boat. You can say it over and over if you have a mass media monopoly and hope it sticks.
The same Jews that said "piracy" and "pirate" over and over in the media for years are the ones who try to use litigation to increase revenue for income that is never lost or stolen. It is copied. If you download something it does not imply you did it instead of buying it. You probably would not have bought it and if you would have you did.
The same goes with music artists. Jewish cartel holding hands with Jewish cartel. Racket.
The judges should demand to see the boat every time. A downloaded copy is never something missing from the MPAA or RIAA. It is revenue they wished they could get and think they can finagle in court since law is a Jew's religion anyway.
They call these infractions civil explicitly to lower the bar. The same with toll violations. Many of the statutes used actually explicitly indicate that ownership of the vehicle shall suffice for the burden of proof regarding the driver. Florida for instance does this.
It is highly suspect that the state can claim you've committed wrongdoing and seek punishment far in excess of actual damages ($0 for a redlight violation and perhaps a $1 in the case of a toll) to punish you and simply choose to call the offense civil in order to deprive you of due process. It is also highly suspect that it is legal for a legislative body to dictate to the courts what does and does not constitute a burden of proof.
Exactly. At least in states I've lived in they treat it as a debt rather than a ticket, so you can't lose your license or go to jail over it. I got popped by a speed trap camera in a school zone because i floored it to clear an intersection ahead of a guy who was running a red light; clocked me at 27 in a 25. Of course I fought it; the guy running the light was BEHIND ME, IN THE INTERSECTION in the photo. The judge laughed that it was even sent to me, dismissed it, and sent me on my way.
If I ever find myself living in a place that bypasses due process entirely, I won't find myself there for long.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I've lived in places where they actually outsourced red light cameras to a third party because they didn't actually meet the burden of proof. If you refused to pay their recourse is no different than any other company claiming you owe them money, they can send it in for collections.
But make no mistake the state IS bypassing due process by declaring a lower burden of proof and denying your constitutional rights as someone accused of a crime and for most offenses, including toll violations you can ultimately end up in jail if you refuse to pay that "debt." You are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and entitled to a trial by jury, whether the punishment is jail time and a record or a $500 fine for a $1 toll. By most standards civil offenses 500 fold damages levied by the state is far in excess of what should be called civil, even an angry judge would normally award only treble damages as a punitive measure in a civil case. Generally, they keep real judges out of traffic court though.
Parking violations are usually just sent to the vehicle owner, without further ado. (You can, of course, contest them, but it's usually preferable to just pay them.) In my state, that's perfectly legal. Moving violations have consequences beyond fines, and the driver must be identified. Red-light cameras ran into legal trouble here, since they didn't positively identify the driver and were trying to ticket for moving violations.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Did somebody commit kidnapping, rape, murder or some other heinous crime on the high seas?
You're forgetting about parking tickets though. It doesn't matter who parked the car, the owner gets the ticket.
They have no proof :-)