Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Orders ISP To Hand Identities Behind 5,300 IP Addresses To Copyright Trolls (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the sucked-into-the-controversy dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: An initiative, fronted by Danish law firm Njord and backed by known international copyright trolls Guardaley, made headlines when it began targeting the customers of several ISPs, including Telia, Tele2 and Bredbandsbolaget, the provider that was previously ordered to block The Pirate Bay. At the time it was unclear how many people the law firm had in its sights but the situation has become more clear following a recent legal development. Sweden's new Patent and Market Court, that was formed last year to handle specialist copyright complaints, handed down a ruling on Friday. It grants Njord and its partners the right to force ISP Telia to hand over the personal details of subscribers behind thousands of IP addresses, despite the ISP's objections. Telia says that although it places great value on its subscribers' right to privacy, complying with a court order is a legal requirement. In all, subscribers behind 5,300 Telia IP addresses will be affected, with claims that each unlawfully downloaded and shared a range of movie titles including CELL, IT, London Has Fallen, Mechanic: Resurrection, Criminal and September of Shiraz. All have featured in previous Guardaley trolling cases in the United States. It's not known how many of the 5,300 IP addresses Telia will be able to match to subscribers, or whether each IP address will identify a unique subscriber, but it's safe to say that thousands of households will be affected. "There is probable cause of infringement of copyright in the films in that they were unlawfully made available to the public via file sharing networks," the Court wrote in its judgement. "The applicants' interest in having access to the information outweighs any opposing interests, including the interest of the individual [subscribers] to remain anonymous." A Telia press spokesperson told SVT: "We believe that our customers' privacy is incredibly important, but now we must comply with this court decision."

41 comments

  1. then Danes have their problems right now by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Funny

    just rotten, i tell ya.

    1. Re:then Danes have their problems right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      swedes now slaves to foreign entertainment companies. nice.

    2. Re:then Danes have their problems right now by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      just rotten, i tell ya.

      As I read it, no danes are affected yet. This was against ISPs in Sweden by a Swedish court. The Danish lawfirm is just representing a US troll to a Swedish regulatory captured court, to all collectively screw Swedish customers.

    3. Re:then Danes have their problems right now by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Just in case you did not recognize the humour.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:then Danes have their problems right now by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      just rotten, i tell ya.

      I'm disappointed by how many people didn't get this.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  2. Solving the problem through random numbers by layabout · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seems to me that their DHCP server should be changed to hand out a new address every time the old address lease expires. Without logging, you can't tell what addresses associated with what person.

    1. Re:Solving the problem through random numbers by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      I believe that due to subpoena requirements logging is mandatory for ISPs in many (most?) countries. I know I've had to implement that on service routers as a requirement. It becomes a pain in the ass with Carrier Grade NAT because multiple customers share a single public IP. Then you also have to log port and time-stamp and those have to be provided as part of the subpoena.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Solving the problem through random numbers by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I sense that you think this is difficult, and I agree.

      The ISP logs have to show the exact time of possession, and use, by an alleged offender of a particular IP address.

      This exercise may reveal exactly how much the ISP knows, like MAC address (and smart device equivalent), that could be discovered by confiscating user's machines.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:Solving the problem through random numbers by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that one or more subscribers who have never "shared" copyright material will have their details sent to the court?

      Educate me, please - just how could a plaintiff establish to a court's satisfaction which particular subscriber was involved?

      Talk about a scattergun approach.

      "Here is the list of subscribers sharing that IP address at nine PM last Tuesday night, your honor."

      "What, there's twenty of them, all at different physical addresses, and not otherwise related to each other? Case dismissed. Plaintiff, get your facts straight before coming here again."

      We can only hope, and trust in VPNs.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    4. Re:Solving the problem through random numbers by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The problem I see is that it will just come back at the ISP because the burden and expense will be on them to log a thousand times more data.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re:Solving the problem through random numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See also why many places stopped providing free wifi. They didn't want to put up with this crap from the "rightsholders."

    6. Re:Solving the problem through random numbers by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Subpoena would more likely be for online threats, locating fugitives, charlie papa, DEA stuff.
      DMCA violations are different requests that follow the same technical process but are taken more or less seriously depending on the ISP. If a subpoena is received saying "Email provider X says that a bomb threat was sent from IP A.B.C.D at 4:32 on the 13th of December", more or less. They typically already have subpoena'd some information from Google or Yahoo or Microsoft or somebody. Then the ISP goes back through DHCP/Router logs and reports back which subscriber that was. If CG-NAT is in use, the ISP will also require a TCP port or they can't respond to the request. I don't know anyone who would respond with a list of multiple subscribers. That would be useless for prosecution and real bad for the ISP.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    7. Re:Solving the problem through random numbers by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The MAC address of the router would be visible, but not of the computer, as that is not passed outside the local network (for the most part...).

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    8. Re:Solving the problem through random numbers by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      ... (for the most part...) ...

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  3. I'll help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    216.58.217.14 is YouTube

    No problem!

  4. What's the outrage here? by mi · · Score: 1

    "There is probable cause of infringement of copyright in the films in that they were unlawfully made available to the public via file sharing networks," the Court wrote in its judgement.

    It would've been understandable, if the users were deanonymized by police or other parties directly — such as through bullying of some kind.

    But this is a court's decision — the judge(s) heard both sides and rendered judgment. This is how a law-abiding society is supposed to work...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:What's the outrage here? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      If the court order says to hand over the identities of these users, we have to assume the court currently doesn't KNOW the identities of these users.

      How, then, has the court heard both sides of the case?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:What's the outrage here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The users don't own the data that was requested in the sapina. Why would they be involved in this court case?

      They'll be involved in the follow on court case, where they will be given the oppertunity to present arguements in their favor, but have zero involovment in the articles case.

      Remember, your identity is DATA that can be owned, it is not private.

    3. Re:What's the outrage here? by mi · · Score: 1

      How, then, has the court heard both sides of the case?

      Informally, this is hardly a unique situation — in many cases lawsuits are filed against parties unknown at the time of filing, their very identities subject to discovery. See also "John Doe".

      Formally, the two sides, obviously, are the ISP and the (supposedly) injured party. Once the user-identities are known, separate suits will be filed against them and the court will hear their side, no doubt.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:What's the outrage here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When's the last time the law was on the commoner's side? Law is arbitrary ruling delivered by an elite class who never has to meet the consequences of their decisions. I'd say if anything, they're the least trustworthy and least likely to deliver something fair.

      Unless Swedish law covers this, it's just yet another attempt from the USA to influence the entire world. If anyone from outside the US reads this, please know that this wasn't voted on and not all Americans want their country to rule everything.

    5. Re:What's the outrage here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because as usual the judge was probably too technically inept to understand the implication of his ruling - that thousands of people could be falsely accused of committing a crime they didn't actually commit by people making spurious monetary demands and bullying.

      A law abiding society only works to the extent that the people making judgement can understand the implications of their judgement. The judge argued that right to anonymity doesn't outweigh the right for copyright trolls to try and bully people into handing money over that they do not owe with legal threats. What the judge really should've considered is whether there is a realistic prospect of disproportionate impact to the lives of innocent people relative to the claimants attempts to achieve compensation for piracy. Had he properly analysed this, he would've come to a different conclusion.

      But as this is apparently a court designed for white washing the demands of copyright cartels, then it shouldn't be too surprising that the judge came to a biased conclusion.

      For lawful society to work people need to trust that the courts will be fair, this doesn't do that.

    6. Re:What's the outrage here? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      This is how a law-abiding society is supposed to work...

      An example of why this is broken is that the term "made available". Effectively it's a crime less crime. Show me who downloaded stuff. Show me the economic damages that specific person caused down to the number of copies that were transferred. Show me that the person who retrieved the copy used it in full and didn't either just download, or just watch / use a small portion allowed under fair use.

      THAT is how law-abiding society is supposed to work.

    7. Re:What's the outrage here? by mi · · Score: 1

      An example of why this is broken is that the term "made available".

      It is illegal to be making such copies available — because duly-elected lawmakers decided to illegalize it. The judge(s), who are supposed to interpret the law, did interpret it...

      Show me the economic damages that specific person caused

      I don't have to show you anything. It is illegal to allow others to copy the media, period. But, interestingly, your argument is similar to something, spammers would claim: "just press Delete — you haven't lost anything".

      THAT is how law-abiding society is supposed to work.

      No, that's a society of thieves you are talking about.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:What's the outrage here? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It is illegal to be making such copies available

      Before you go any further I encourage you to:
      a) look this up (because I think you'll be surprised)
      b) realise that this is a civil case not a criminal one so what is legal and illegal takes a back seat to contract and copyright laws. None of which mention anything about making available.

      It is illegal to allow others to copy the media, period.

      Nope.

      No, that's a society of thieves you are talking about.

      A law that is not respected by the population is not a law of a civilised society. If it's a society of thieves we are in, then I'm going to take a seat in it, right next to Rosa Parks cheering for an end to corporate bought bullshit.

      But if you actually look at the history of copyright law, you may realise you are very right about the thieves, just wrong about who is actually doing the thieving.

      Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to listen to a mix tape from my girlfriend. Shit we were lawless in the 70s.

    9. Re:What's the outrage here? by mi · · Score: 1

      None of which mention anything about making available.

      You really want to split hairs and be formal about it — fine. You aren't sold a piece of entertainment. What you get for your money is a right (a license) to enjoy it. One of the conditions of that license is that you do not make it available to anyone else. By making it available you violate the contract — knowingly and willingly — and should be screwed to the wall for it.

      right next to Rosa Parks cheering

      Ha-ha! Rosa Parks was actually breaking a law — an unjust one. The "pirates" — as you yourself pointed out — enter into a contract voluntarily, then renege on it. Not buying the license you consider overly restrictive is a valid form of protest. Violating the contract is not.

      who is actually doing the thieving

      You are the thief. The movie-makers don't owe you anything. If you don't like their movies — or the conditions under which they distribute them — you don't have to partake of any of it. It is not even food or shelter or anything required for survival.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:What's the outrage here? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yes one needs to split hairs in legal matters.

      As for producers not owing anything and following letters of the law, i can see you know nothing of copyright history.

      Much less how contact law works (pirates didn't enter into a restrictive "make available" contract precisely because they didn't pay anything). So that falls back onto what's written in copyright law and again there's no mention of making things available in it.

      Try again. Me I'll be continuing the civil disobedience until copyright holders return the content to us as the laws require before they unjustly bought and paid for the changes to the law.

    11. Re:What's the outrage here? by mi · · Score: 1

      As for producers not owing anything [...] you know nothing of copyright history.

      Alright, what do Quentin Tarantino and Clint Eastwood owe you?

      I'll be continuing the civil disobedience

      OMG, you really do equate your "civil disobedience" fighting for your "right" to free entertainment with that of Rosa Parks fighting racial discrimination... You want to steal — fine, live with it. But your desire to clean up your conscience and appear righteous leads to hilariously idiotic statements...

      return the content to us as the laws require

      Please, cite the law entitling you to the content other people created?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  5. What a list by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    CELL, IT, London Has Fallen, Mechanic: Resurrection, Criminal and September of Shiraz

    It's amazing how most copyright trolls are targeting people for downloading utter pieces of crap that no one would every pay a cent to see.

    11, 10, 25, 29, 30, 33, Respective Rotten Tomato scores out of 100. It's almost like they sorted them by crapness.

    1. Re:What a list by Calydor · · Score: 1

      10 for IT? I assume this isn't Stephen King's IT, then? I find it hard to believe that would get a 10/100.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:What a list by youngone · · Score: 1
      I had this vague hope that London Has Fallen might be some awesome alternate history thing about the Nazis winning WWII, but no, part of a "Franchise" the first of which was a total load, but made money.

      I noted that Gerard Butler is a "Producer" for the third one, which I assume is code for "You need to pay me more to keep doing this rubbish".

    3. Re:What a list by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Given how every other item on that list was a very recent release and it's a recent lawsuit, I would assume it's https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

    4. Re:What a list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Popular movies would have too much user activity and the sheer number of people at risk of being outed might make courts hesitate and/or the public revolt. Mass incarceration of (apparently >5000) people who just want to hear some album or see some movie that society practically demands of them? P.R. nightmare. No doubt the people pirating those shitty movies also pirated popular stuff, thus thinning the herds of those seeder pools. Perhaps the copyright trolls' goal is to pick off "small" groups of people at a time until popular movies have a small enough base of users to go after.

      Also I don't think this is about lost revenue. I think it's just a means of eventually imprisoning everyone. Bob Goodman never got into the thug "lifestyle" of serious or petty crime glorified by gangster rap... didn't take to any hard drugs... didn't even take to any petty drugs that we punish disproportionately for... doesn't drive drunk or even go noticeably over the speed limit... pays his taxes... keeps his hands off his wife and kids... respects others around him and generally obeys the law and manages to live freely beyond our tyrannical control... how about things like digital piracy? Does he download anything? Anything at all? Yes?! Excellent! Slap a massive "example-making" fine on him that he can't possibly pay (or jail time)! Of course, "Bob Goodman" wouldn't be a known individual being targeted as much as a placeholder for anyone who hasn't already been locked up for something more tangible. The billionaires who own the entertainment industry couldn't possibly care about the comparatively meager losses caused by piracy. It's probably all factored into what they pay the lowly content creators.

      Now where's my tinfoil hat...

    5. Re:What a list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they're more desperate to recoup money for absolute failures.

    6. Re:What a list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of the most annoying things in Hollywood and it is the reason we keep getting shit remakes now instead of loads of original ideas: they never check reviews when deciding to make sequels, they only give a shit about the sales.
      If a film made profit, it's glorious, it basically saved the life of Jesus.
      It only got a 3 in reviews? That just means make 3 sequels!

      Sequels bomb hard, "man, so confused as to why that happened, these markets sure are unpredictable :^)" and spit out the Matrix reboot.

  6. Not Surprising by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how most copyright trolls are targeting people for downloading utter pieces of crap that no one would every pay a cent to see.

    What's surprising about that? They clearly are not going to make money from people voluntarily paying to see these films are they?

    1. Re:Not Surprising by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It just kind of re-enforces that notion that pirates are not customers, that a pirated copy is not a lost sale, and that piracy is not actually causing losses to the studio.

  7. One of the accounts belongs to Katherine Giles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She downloaded movies to watch while cycling to work.

  8. Copyright trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think you know what it means.

  9. Good. Bring back old underground warez groups. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sharing culture was ruined when downloading became mainstream.

    The Matrix still had it right: people went in-person to Neo's door to say hi and ask for warez. None of this modern antisocial hurr-durr-imma-click-link-and-watch-shitty-american-tv-show bullshit.

  10. Perhaps a visit to Denmark is in order? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say hello to the attorneys?