Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Dismisses Movie Piracy Case, IP-Address Doesn't Prove Anything (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the lack-of-evidence dept.

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.

110 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Oculus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How the fuck is old news regarding DRM on VR systems related to this case?

    1. Re:Oculus by blahbooboo · · Score: 2

      How the fuck is old news regarding DRM on VR systems related to this case?

      Yeah I didn't get the tie in at all either. Slashvertisement?

    2. Re:Oculus by Stephenmg · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing then I remembered I was on Slashdot.

    3. Re:Oculus by queequeg1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is Slashdot. But these complete non-sequitur concluding sentences seem to be somewhat new. Or maybe they're just happening more frequently (and with a higher level of disconnectedness from the main summary).

    4. Re:Oculus by robosmurf · · Score: 1

      It's also incorrect old news, as both the link and article are backwards: it's actually easing the restriction of Oculus Rift games on Vive.

    5. Re:Oculus by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Beating the same horse over and over and over. Cause it's fun, dun' it before. Easier than being original.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re: Oculus by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I see absolutely nothing wrong with the summary. Perhaps you all have an overly-aggressive ad blocker that's damaging the front page. 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.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    7. Re:Oculus by gweihir · · Score: 1

      My guess is that they make these additional statements by some algorithm that is completely stupid. The link here seems to be copyright.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:Oculus by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Beating the same horse over and over and over.

      Please note that beating your horse voids its warranty.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  2. Sanity vs. Copyright. by geekmux · · Score: 5, Funny

    The case was likely dismissed on grounds of questionable sanity.

    No one in their right mind would even bother stealing that movie.

    1. Re:Sanity vs. Copyright. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Downloading an Adam Sandler movie should carry the death penalty.

    2. Re:Sanity vs. Copyright. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a bit harsh. Watching it might cause brain cells to die, however.

    3. Re:Sanity vs. Copyright. by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      It does, for the watcher's brain-cells...

    4. Re:Sanity vs. Copyright. by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      The case was likely dismissed on grounds of questionable sanity.

      No one in their right mind would even bother stealing that movie.

      Obviously a case of "Diminished Responsibility"

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    5. Re:Sanity vs. Copyright. by harperska · · Score: 1

      Assuming the downloader actually watched the movie, even just sentencing to 'time served' might amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

    6. Re:Sanity vs. Copyright. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I would say this would be grounds for a fair use claim.

      Surely no one would watch more than say 30 seconds of that film before deleting it and opting to watch paint dry instead.

  3. Plausible? by Fusen · · Score: 2

    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"?

    1. Re:Plausible? by Vitani · · Score: 2

      I imagine that just because he pays the bill (I assume he does) it does not mean that *he* downloaded the film. Anyone using his connection could have done it and so the judge is saying that the prosecutors have to prove it was *him*. I imagine.

    2. Re:Plausible? by Fusen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is exactly why I repeated 'plausible' three times as my point is, lets bring out the car analogy, if Mr Johnson owns a car and that car is caught speeding by a speed camera. It is PLAUSIBLE that Mr Johnson was speeding as it is his car. It's entirely plausible. It doesn't mean it wasn't Mrs Johnson driving or Mr Johnson's kid. It may have been stolen and it wasn't anyone in the Johnson family. But it is definitely PLAUSIBLE that it was Mr Johnson.

      Exactly the same applies in this case, if the only requirement is whether it is plausible, then surely the IP belongs to Gonzales' account with the ISP so it is plausible it was him.

    3. Re:Plausible? by tal_mud · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the continuation of the article it says:

          "That an outsider could be the pirate is not unlikely. The defendant operates an adult foster care home where several people had access to the Internet. The filmmakers were aware of this and during a hearing their counsel admitted that any guest could have downloaded the film."

      So indeed the judges ruling is reasonable...

    4. Re:Plausible? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Fair point, but maybe the judge thought 'plausible, even though in the law as written, is not a high enough bar for conviction'.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:Plausible? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This could apply to pretty much any internet connection. Most residential ones are shared with multiple users, if not just open due to poor configuration or one of the ISP deals where customers can use your wifi and in exchange you can use theirs.

      Since, as the bill payer, you are under no obligation to investigate on behalf of the rights holder, there isn't much they can do to identify who downloaded the file, if indeed it was even downloaded. Most trackers include a few random IP addresses and often these companies don't bother to actually check for connectivity, and ISP record keeping for legal compliance is unlikely to be very good. Why spend money on a system that is only used by law enforcement and people suing your customers?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Plausible? by cyberfunkr · · Score: 1

      I think the first thing to note is that I doubt laws uses "quotes" to define a term like "plausible". So it is suspect that what was in the summary is not accurate/official/legal (surprise, surprise).

      Given that, I'll try and make an car analogy work.
      * Let's start with; yes, one person is the registered owner of the car so it is possible that that person is responsible for any infraction involving the car.
      * It is also possible that anyone else in the house could have taken the keys and borrowed the car without the owner knowing.
      * Perhaps a neighbor has a key to this car and the owner doesn't even know that they are using it
      * Maybe the car was left unlocked with the keys out in the open so anyone walking by could have used the car
      * What if this is one of those modern self-driving cars and a hacker has hacked their way in and drove it remotely
      * Someone slim-jimmed the lock and fooled On-Star to start it remotely
      * Someone just broke the window and hot-wired the car

      While option one is plausible, there are so many other ways that someone other than the person whose name is on the bill could the actual perpetrator, that you cannot summarily say "He's the one".

    7. Re:Plausible? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      In the continuation of the article it says:

      "That an outsider could be the pirate is not unlikely. The defendant operates an adult foster care home where several people had access to the Internet. The filmmakers were aware of this and during a hearing their counsel admitted that any guest could have downloaded the film."

      So indeed the judges ruling is reasonable...

      It's almost as if that was a relevant fact that should have been included in the summary of the article.

    8. Re:Plausible? by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Not a great argument in Ontario. Up here if your car is caught by a red-light camera, the owner of the car (or the plate at least) is responsible for paying the fine. Normally running a red light also gets you demerit points on your licence, but you cannot receive any demerit points via a red-light camera because they can't prove it was you. So in this analogy, you might still be responsible for copyright fines as the owner of the connection.

    9. Re:Plausible? by Fusen · · Score: 1

      I'm fully in agreement that an IP address proves nothing in a case like this. I merely wanted to question the (we've all agreed quite clearly wrong) summary.

    10. Re:Plausible? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That would require a law saying that the owner of a connection is liable for all copyright violations on his or her connection. Unless you run a service that exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation, and an internet connection doesn't qualify, you aren't liable for copyright violations just because they're from your connection. (Note: IANAL. Of course, this being Slashdot, ramblings from pseudonymous unqualified people substitute nicely for actual legal advice.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:Plausible? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Ha! I love cases like that. A friend of mine had to go to court once because he was working the front door at a crowded bar and a police officer issued him a ticket (in his name) because the bar was too noisy. In court, my friend defended himself:

      Friend: During the incident, do you remember me saying that I was just there to check IDs, that I had no control over the volume of the music, and that you would need to enter the bar and speak to someone else who could address it?
      Cop: Yes, I remember that.
      City Attorney: Your honor, we move to dismiss.

      And that was that.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    12. Re:Plausible? by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if that was a relevant fact that should have been included in the summary of the article.

      Well - that's where Slashdot has gone downhill.

      Same with the article about the gear shifter. What the summary should've mentioned is:

      Though shift patterns â" things like P-R-N-D â" are standardized, the designs of shifters themselves are not. FCA's shifter was unusual in that it resembles a classic floor-mounted gear selector that can be physically moved between different transmission modes, but FCA's lever always returns to the center position, making it impossible to tell by feel alone which gear you're in.

      It always returns to the center position. Why wasn't this mentioned in the summary?

      Same as with this article's summary: why did it not mention that the filmmakers admitted that anybody in that foster care home could've downloaded stuff. And therefor this ruling makes sense.

      Slashdot editors: do it right or don't do it all.

  4. Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but if you had keys to the car, and so did your brother, and your sister, and your dad, and the guy down the street, it becomes less likely that YOU were the driver of the car during the bank robbery.

      What's going on with this case is similar. The judge is saying that the IP address doesn't prove who was "driving".

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Or he has a public wifi hotspot or somebody hacked his wifi. Harder to do with a car. Somebody would be robbing that bank with your car while at the same time you are eating at McDonald's in said car...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Stephenmg · · Score: 1

      With Wifi, it would be more like sitting in front of the gas station, unlocked and the car running. People share there WiFI passwords with guest all the time. Plus, wifi passwords aren't hard to crack.

    4. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a Network Engineer and I have worked in the I.T. field for 30 years. I specialize in computer forensics.

      This is completely correct. In this age of cyber attacks, malware, ransomware, viruses, and hacks, it is very common for somebody else to seize control over a computer remotely and make your computer do things without your noticing it or leaving any trace.

      Anybody ever accused of such a crime, should remember that a vast majority of cases depends on an admission of guilt. a VAST majority. In fact, the only ones that don't are the few cases with absolute no doubt, rock solid evidence of who was "driving", and what they were doing, and that only happens if a person is completely stupid.

      FYI, a VPN connection, provides proof that YOU were the person driving since it's password protected and paid for with your credit card.

    5. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes it might be.

      But if you trade cars every 3 months, and the burglary occurred a day after you traded for it, that makes it potentially a bit complicated.

      And of course, you bought it used, so do we want to try and figure out whether the previous owner was responsible? Oh, wait, we don't know who they are, because there are no records. But even if they were, continue...

      And, to complete the scenario, because you weren't paying attention to the known flaw in the keyless entry, someone has been driving your car off and on when you were asleep/drunk/working, and you don't know. Hell, once they drove it around WHILE YOU WERE IN THE CAR AND NO ONE COULD TELL BECAUSE THEY WERE DRIVING AN EXACT COPY.

      Your garage door isn't an impediment. The crooks can throw dice to choose which way to defeat that layer of security.

      Between DHCP and WiFi hijacking, MAC spoofing and general tomfoolery, IP addresses are mostly useless for figuring out who did what. The copyright holders should give up now, or serialize every single copy of everything. Ha.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Eosi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a Network Engineer and I have worked in the I.T. field for 30 years. I specialize in computer forensics.

      This is completely correct. In this age of cyber attacks, malware, ransomware, viruses, and hacks, it is very common for somebody else to seize control over a computer remotely and make your computer do things without your noticing it or leaving any trace.

      Anybody ever accused of such a crime, should remember that a vast majority of cases depends on an admission of guilt. a VAST majority. In fact, the only ones that don't are the few cases with absolute no doubt, rock solid evidence of who was "driving", and what they were doing, and that only happens if a person is completely stupid.

      FYI, a VPN connection, provides proof that YOU were the person driving since it's password protected and paid for with your credit card.

      Really, a VPN connection can only be established by you?

      Yet if someone else already has access and control of your pc, likely with a keylogger on the pc, what stops them from using the VPN as you? Nothing, that is what.

    7. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by link-error · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... and what if your computer/router is setup to automatically create the VPN connection... My 5 year old could be on that VPN.

      --
      -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
    8. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      matching plates?? Are they a full match or a part auto match that failed?

      http://america.aljazeera.com/o...

    9. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by ElectricHellKnight · · Score: 1

      This car analogy is getting more complicated than the actual, real, situation it was supposed to be an analogy for. Does anybody on Slashdot seriously not understand at least the basics of how IP addresses work?

    10. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Eosi · · Score: 1

      Another good point.

      I believe AC not to be as good a computer forensics expert as he claims.

      Once your PC is compromised, nothing can be assured on it, that it is done by the user at the keyboard versus some other malicious actor.

    11. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      You forgot that not only do people setup unsecured wifi... there's an app for that. The skill level required is can you search for an app and install it, but that's not as likely as a trojan that turns your pc or router into a proxy.

    12. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      This car analogy is getting more complicated than the actual, real, situation it was supposed to be an analogy for. Does anybody on Slashdot seriously not understand at least the basics of how IP addresses work?

      Yeah, but this is slashdot where folks love a good car analogy. They even do them on car related stories!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    13. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      At least with that you still have the right to a JURY TRAIL AND An public defender. Unlike in a civil DMCA case where you have to pay for your own costs.

    14. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      What about hacked routers / router level VPN's / open wifi / default wifi passwords / the Comcast public wifi hot spot / etc?

    15. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      That's not even close... it would be more like a bank robber was caught on a fuzzy low quality camera and he had brown hair and eyes, average height and build, and was wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt.

      There are all kinds of malicious software that sets up botnets and can act as a proxy, not all of them are detected by AV software some of them actually attack AV software not to mention all the other ways that can work. If you think an IP address is that hard to trick or spoof you are reading the wrong site.

    16. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

      Even having an IP address is playing the lottery every day with these guys. https://torrentfreak.com/the-p...

    17. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by houghi · · Score: 1

      And that is why you don't download a car.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    18. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

      Should be trivial to have false clients on the honeypot trackers by compromising routers. The internet is less of a net and more of a tree at the edges. We would be fools to think this is not common.

    19. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by houghi · · Score: 1

      The IP changing is not an issue. Logs will tell the provider what household was connected to that specific IP at that specific time.

      I am assuming that they will at least provide not only an IP, but also a time and date of when the assumed copyright violation took place.

      Now I hope they did took summer/winter time into account. Yes, I know of cases where they got t his wrong. This was during dialup and it became clear pretty fast they made a stupid mistake.

      Also they did not get far anyway, as it was not a court order, so we told them to fuck off and come back with a court order. The court told them to fuck off and come back when people started making money of copyright infringement and not bother them if Aunt Emma is sharing her music.

      Not in those words and I feel stupid not to have kept a copy of that last letter. Country? Belgium.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    20. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by mattventura · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, I'm wondering how they plan to track pirates when CG-NAT becomes widespread. Maybe some source port trickery+logging?

    21. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Does anybody on Slashdot seriously not understand at least the basics of how IP addresses work?

      Those are things you can get using a GUI, but only if you know how to write Visual Basic. Maybe you're elite enough to do that, but you don't have to rub it in. EXCUUUSE ME for not being a rocket scientician!

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    22. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by CimmerianX · · Score: 1

      That's why you get a VPN service that doesn't keep logs past 48 hours.... DUH.

    23. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "FYI, a VPN connection, provides proof that YOU were the person driving since it's password protected and paid for with your credit card."

      I beg to differ. I pay my VPN with my credit-card just as I pay my ISP with my credit-card.

      There is absolutely no difference besides the IP. My wife, kids, friends, the friends of the kids, the neighbors, everybody makes their connection via the VPN, just as any fictional bad boys overtaking my computer.

      The router just uses the VPN, no matter who connects.

    24. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      FYI, a VPN connection, provides proof that YOU were the person driving since it's password protected and paid for with your credit card.

      Really, a VPN connection can only be established by you?

      Yet if someone else already has access and control of your pc, likely with a keylogger on the pc, what stops them from using the VPN as you? Nothing, that is what.

      ... and what if your computer/router is setup to automatically create the VPN connection... My 5 year old could be on that VPN.

      It would definitely be harder to show that you were innocent if the VPN service is in your name. While not impossible for someone to hijack a VPN connection, My personal opinion is that such an argument without proof would be an uphill battle in court. Note: I am not a lawyer.

    25. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Until our infrastructure switches over to IPV6. I can imagine each device will get its own dedicated IPV6 address, based on a hashing of unique hardware indicators - then the copyright holders will have a field day.

    26. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Because an IP address is trivially spoofed and even if not spoofed they are shared and in the case of most consumer connections they are assigned and reassigned from a pool and none of the systems managing them are controlled or regulated in any fashion whatsoever. They don't even log well. You can't even be certain your logs are correct or that the timestamps are correct. Even if someone hasn't altered anything there is no guarantee the extremely complex bug filled software running on them is logging correctly. I've seen literally millions of inaccurate logs in enterprise grade systems. Technical systems are designed to keep things operational not to provide any sort of legally sound accounting.

      Even the standards that are meant to create some semblance of that like PCI are a complete joke. There is no sound chain of custody and there are millions of loopholes.

    27. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "FYI, a VPN connection, provides proof that YOU were the person driving since it's password protected and paid for with your credit card."

      Unless of course your vpn account was hacked and your password compromised. Malware infecting your browser will give access to your vpn as well as your laptop/desktop along with literally any and every other activity you do or could perform with those devices and/or the connectivity those devices have. And of course it could be your credit card which is compromised or it could be both your device and/or connection and your credit card. It's easy to sound like an escalating probability but in reality all of this has the exact same probability as the single device being compromised and all those extra compromised bits add up to no additional assurance whatsoever.

      Someone might take a vpn connection as proof but it doesn't actually prove anything. It's even unlikely you can actually prove the vpn connection was used at all. Logs certainly don't provide evidence sound enough that they can be trusted as proof. The reliability of logs is what they were designed for in the first place, as an untrustworthy suggestion of what to look at in troubleshooting.

    28. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Eosi · · Score: 2

      It would definitely be harder to show that you were innocent if the VPN service is in your name. While not impossible for someone to hijack a VPN connection, My personal opinion is that such an argument without proof would be an uphill battle in court. Note: I am not a lawyer.

      So, having been to court many times, both with a lawyer and acting Pro Se, I can assure you that (in civil court at least), it HAS to be proven that it was actually YOU who did it. A log by itself is not enough.

      What I mean by this, a cell phone in my name, could be left on the counter and a child could have used it to make a phone call. While that is my phone and in my name, no one witnessed the call, and the log file cannot attest to it having been me make that call

      Not sure about criminal court, but the rules of evidence are the same, so would have to assume that someone would have to witness you doing it or provide attestation that it was truly you. Which would be hard in this case

    29. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Really, a VPN connection can only be established by you?

      Steps for connecting my VPN:

      1. Click the "Cloak" icon in my menu bar, then "Secure my connection"
      2. Wait 4 seconds

      Alternatively, connect to a Wi-Fi network that isn't my house, office, or cell phone. That also triggers it.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    30. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's various levels of evidence. The car shouldn't be enough evidence to convict, but it's probably enough evidence to justify a search warrant. IIRC, in the publicized Internet piracy trials, the main evidence has been what was on the defendant's computer, obtained through legal processes based on probable cause.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    31. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by breeze95 · · Score: 1

      FYI, a VPN connection, provides proof that YOU were the person driving since it's password protected and paid for with your credit card.

      Really, a VPN connection can only be established by you?

      Yet if someone else already has access and control of your pc, likely with a keylogger on the pc, what stops them from using the VPN as you? Nothing, that is what.

      ... and what if your computer/router is setup to automatically create the VPN connection... My 5 year old could be on that VPN.

      It would definitely be harder to show that you were innocent if the VPN service is in your name. While not impossible for someone to hijack a VPN connection, My personal opinion is that such an argument without proof would be an uphill battle in court. Note: I am not a lawyer.

      You are making a blanket statement that's not necessarily true. You may have a point if the user has to manually enter username and password to establish a VPN connection. However that is not the case, username and password is stored by the VPN, on the client's computer, and the credentials are automatically sent to the hosting company for verification. All a user need do is connect to the VPN and credentials are automatically verified. Not to mention, many VPN's are set up to be always connected.

    32. Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Are the logs generated on a server with a correct to the millisecond time? Are the copyright holder's computers accurate to the millisecond? Are they sure the IP isn't spoofed?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. SubjectisSubject by p0p0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    Someone is bad at multitasking. One article at a time mates.

    1. Re:SubjectisSubject by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Nono, This is the Wookie defense in action. You are in court for piracy, have your lawyer bring up the fact that Oculus has taken away their DRM. As this makes absolutely NO sense, they must acquit the defendant!

    2. Re: SubjectisSubject by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      I still can't figure out what everyone's so upset about. 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.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  6. Reason for the dismissal by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Reason for the dismissal by Fusen · · Score: 2

      Ah, that makes sense then.

      Although it does mean that this sentence in the summary is simply wrong - "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."

      If it was true, it doesn't matter how many other peoples shared the internet connection.

  7. Re:Nope by Z80a · · Score: 2

    Given Adam Sandler is directly responsible for this situation, it's quite obvious that he should be jailed for that.

  8. Re:non sequitur? by CeasedCaring · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot is piloting a new system, based on US Government bills, which allows unrelated "riders" on articles.

  9. What has one to do with the other? by houghi · · Score: 2

    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.
  10. Occulus by phorm · · Score: 1

    What does a movie piracy ruling in the courts have to do with the Occulus DRM policy changes?

    1. Re:Occulus by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      What doesn't it have to do with it?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  11. Re:non sequitur? by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it just me, or does this last sentence have nothing to do with the rest of the post or topic?

    I'm pretty sure Apple won't be releasing a 17" MacBook Pro.

  12. Re: non sequitur? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure it's just you. 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.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  13. Three users = no preponderance by tepples · · Score: 2

    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.

  14. Judge has it right by s.petry · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Judge has it right by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      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.

      Unless you're also hacking some routing tables, IP spoofing doesn't work for downloading stuff over BitTorrent. It would work for something like a DDoS, where you don't actually care about getting any data back, but not for downloading stuff.

    2. Re:Judge has it right by Fusen · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you are saying I'm wrong, I was questioning the summary. It seems to be the summary that was wrong.

    3. Re:Judge has it right by sjames · · Score: 1

      Depending on the ISP setup and/or the home network setup, that may not be as hard as you think. Add in an open (ish) WiFi and it becomes entirely likely the downloader was a neighbor or someone borrowing WiFi from the street corner or parking lot.

    4. Re:Judge has it right by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      For criminal proceedings, the accused is legally innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For civil proceedings, the defendant can lose due to a preponderance of evidence, which is pretty much on a "more likely than not" basis.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:Judge has it right by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I didn't say you were wrong, I said you were not providing a complete picture. Read my post again without being defensive.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    6. Re: Judge has it right by Fusen · · Score: 1

      But you seem to have completely misread my question. I was making a point out of the summary stating it only had to be 'plausible'
      I know full well about how an IP isn't concrete proof

    7. Re: Judge has it right by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Apology for mixing up posts. I did state you were wrong, and I expressed exactly how you were wrong. If you wish to counter my claims and demonstrate that IP spoofing does not work, and that common law principles of presumed innocent until proven guilty are wrong please do so with facts.

      My position is based in facts I know, and can be swayed with additional facts.

      When you present a question and provide your own answer, the question becomes rhetorical in nature and is no longer a valid question.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    8. Re: Judge has it right by Fusen · · Score: 1

      Wow, very defensive. You aren't understanding this what so ever. So let's leave it at that :)

  15. Re:non sequitur? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Easier than editing for content, right Timothy!

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  16. Oculus by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    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.

    --BeauHD.

    -1. Offtopic.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  17. Re: non sequitur? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

    Second time you posted this.
    Second time it makes no sense whatsoever.
    It's in an article about IP addresses/copyrights. WTF does that have to do with Oculus in any way?

    Well, the thing is that the "Designated Hitter Rule" has been a subject of controversy for quite a while now, what with all the wind farms that are being proposed in Norway. I don't know how I could make it any clearer.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  18. Re: non sequitur? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

    WTF does that have to do with Oculus in any way?

    Because 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.

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  19. Re:Stop saying download by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

    He torrented the movie...he's getting in trouble for uploading. Downloading is not a crime.

    Exactly. As far as I know there is still nothing illegal about downloading or watching pirated content. If I find a pirated movie on youtube (of which there are ton, btw) or any other random website, then it's perfectly legal for me to watch it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is the way that I understand the current copyright laws in the USA. I'm not even sure possession of downloaded movies is illegal as long as you don't try to give/sell them to someone else.

  20. Re: non sequitur? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    I thought everyone has agreed that Sony was going to produce all nuclear weapons from now on.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  21. Re:non sequitur? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does this last sentence have nothing to do with the rest of the post or topic?

    I'm pretty sure Apple won't be releasing a 17" MacBook Pro.

    Of course they will. The rains come early this time of year.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  22. Re:Nope by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Given Adam Sandler is directly responsible for this situation, it's quite obvious that he should be jailed for that.

    Are we not looking for a volunteer for a one way Mars trip?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  23. Re:What the fuck? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Everything.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  24. The driver did it. VPNs mean nothing. by gavron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  25. Re:The driver did it. VPNs mean nothing. by Falos · · Score: 1

    While the words in your sentence are accurate, the behavior of RLC owners isn't exactly a beacon of legal compliance.

  26. Re:The driver did it. VPNs mean nothing. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    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.
  27. Re: non sequitur? by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 2

    The software on the Oculus Rift is their Intellectual Property (IP), and this shares a common acronym with IP Addresses. Also, 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.

    TL;DR: Woooosh

    --
    SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
  28. Re:What the fuck? by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

    Everything. And nothing.

    --
    SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
  29. Re:Real question by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

    Yes, let's focus on the real crime committed here.

    --
    SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
  30. Re:The driver did it. VPNs mean nothing. by shaitand · · Score: 2

    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.

  31. Re:The driver did it. VPNs mean nothing. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    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.
  32. Re:The driver did it. VPNs mean nothing. by shaitand · · Score: 1

    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.

  33. Re:Stop saying download by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

    Technically (legally) you are wrong. Downloading a movie requires making a copy of it, one which the hosting site is not authorized to allow.

    That could easily be said for something saved to your harddrive but you would have a much harder case making that for something streamed from youtube. Also, in youtube's case, google would likely have to give them your ip address and google is the more guilty of the two parties.

  34. Re:non sequitur? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does this last sentence have nothing to do with the rest of the post or topic?

    I'm pretty sure Apple won't be releasing a 17" MacBook Pro.

    Of course they will. The rains come early this time of year.

    Of course, we wore onions on our belt back then.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  35. Re: non sequitur? by lgw · · Score: 1

    Well, the thing is that the "Designated Hitter Rule" has been a subject of controversy for quite a while now

    Far less controversial than the Designated Hitler rule, let me assure you.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  36. Re: non sequitur? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Far less controversial than the Designated Hitler rule, let me assure you.

    I'm pretty sure that the Designated Hitler rule is why they only have nein guys on a baseball team.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  37. Re:The driver did it. VPNs mean nothing. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    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
  38. Re:Stop saying download by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    To be precise, downloading is a copyright violation, but not criminal copyright infringement. Uploading to something that is generally available on the Internet is. So, while downloading is not a crime, it's still something the copyright holder can sue for.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  39. Re:The driver did it. VPNs mean nothing. by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    You're forgetting about parking tickets though. It doesn't matter who parked the car, the owner gets the ticket.

  40. Brilliant... by iq145 · · Score: 1

    They have no proof :-)