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.

Comments

Oculus

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Oculus

[blahbooboo]

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?

Sanity vs. Copyright.

[geekmux]

The case was likely dismissed on grounds of questionable sanity.

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

Plausible?

[Fusen]

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"?

Re:Plausible?

[Vitani]

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.

Re:Plausible?

[Fusen]

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.

Re:Plausible?

[tal_mud]

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...

Re:Plausible?

[Dragonslicer]

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.

Why doesn't an IP address prove something?

[goombah99]

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.

Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something?

[Kierthos]

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".

Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something?

[rickb928]

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.

Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something?

[Eosi]

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.

Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something?

[link-error]

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

Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something?

[Eosi]

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

SubjectisSubject

[p0p0]

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.

Re: SubjectisSubject

[Samantha Wright]

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.

Reason for the dismissal

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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.

Re:Reason for the dismissal

[Fusen]

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.

Re:Nope

[Z80a]

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

Re:non sequitur?

[CeasedCaring]

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

What has one to do with the other?

[houghi]

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.

Re:non sequitur?

[Yvan256]

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.

Three users = no preponderance

[tepples]

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.

Re: non sequitur?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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.

The driver did it. VPNs mean nothing.

[gavron]

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

Re: non sequitur?

[Jake Griffin]

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

Re:The driver did it. VPNs mean nothing.

[shaitand]

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.