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.
The case was likely dismissed on grounds of questionable sanity.
No one in their right mind would even bother stealing that movie.
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.
Slashdot is piloting a new system, based on US Government bills, which allows unrelated "riders" on articles.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
I'm pretty sure Apple won't be releasing a 17" MacBook Pro.
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
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