Slashdot Mirror
US Court of Appeals: An IP Address Isn't Enough To Identify a Pirate (techspot.com)
A judge has ruled that copyright trolls need more than just an IP address if they want to go after copyright infringement. An IP is not enough proof to tie a person to a crime. From a report: In a win for privacy advocates and pirates, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an IP address alone is not enough to go after someone for alleged copyright infringement. They ruled that being the registered subscriber of an infringing IP address does not create a reasonable inference that the subscriber is also the infringer. The case began back in 2016 and has been playing out in the legal system ever since. The creators of the film "The Cobbler" alleged that Thomas Gonzales had illegally downloaded their movie and sued him for it. Gonzales was a Comcast subscriber and had set up his network with an open Wi-Fi access point. At some point, someone had used his network to download the movie and the film creators captured Gonzales's IP address. The judge stated that in order for a proper case, the copyright owners would need more than just an IP address.
n/t
Someone should tell lawyers what MAC addresses are.
No, wait. Don't.
... who ever did download and watch it has already been punished enough.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Because of the open WiFi.
But what about a regular household with many different users including minors and a WPA2 protected network? Who are they going to sue?
Is it really reasonable to sue the account owner in such a case? Should the account owner have to keep internal logs in order to identify which kid did the copyright violation?
An IP isn't enough to identify a pirate?
An "I" Patch?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
An open guest wifi restricted to nothing internal and rate limit it to say 64kbps up/64kbps down. Enough to have deniability, poor enough access that no one will use it. Obviously you have to have the right wifi equipment to restrict access to your main network as well as the rate limiting - like pfSense or Ubiquiti UniFi wifi for example, etc.
I expect the various copyright groups will now begin lobbying for a law requiring ISPs to use the device cameras to take a photo of whoever is at the terminal before allowing any sizeable file to be downloaded. Or perhaps just continuous video surveillance while you're connected to the ISP. As we've seen many times, anything that provides plausible deniability to copyright infringement becomes a major target of legislation by the major content providers.
Or simply plausible deniability. As an IT admin, you do know better, you also know how to hide things better.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The MPAA / RIAA already know this and they know litigation ( especially beyond this ruling ) is likely going to cost them more than they're going to bring in.
Thus, my guess as to why they want to shift the burden onto the ISP's to play Copyright Cop.
Why waste your money and time when you can waste someone else's money and time instead ?
Having said that, however, are the ISP's going to follow the same rules about an IP address != a subscriber before throttling or disconnecting your service completely when they " detect " copyright infringement ?
Going slightly offtopic:
As an afterthought, ( especially if the Automation Doomsayers are right ) I wonder if the Fat Cat types who run these companies selling $services or $goods realize that as folks have less and less disposable income, the fewer goods and services they're going to sell. The demand will certainly be there, just not the means to pay for it. Guess where that leads ? ( Insert your best "Yarrr Matey" voice here )
So, the way I see it, it would be in Big Corps best interests to start trying to reduce that income inequality gap if they plan on having enough folks with money to sell their goods to in the future. Or, they can continue to waste their time trying to figure out how to solve the problem through litigation against folks who don't have any money to begin with.
I had a (stupid) friend who ran an open wifi that got raided for the police for child porn because they tied it to his IP address. Never found any evidence on his PCs (after they sent drive copies to the FBI) or hidden stashes in his house, never arrested and the case was quietly dropped a year later.
As an IT admin you'd think he'd have known better -
I'm sure they've left "eyes" in his home network to keep a look out after they dropped the case. If he ever does anything illegal online I'm sure he'll quickly be called for it.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
In one case I used a neighbor's wifi for several days while my own internet was waiting to be installed.
Those days are gone, alas-- almost everything but Starbux is locked down these days. Too many jerks downloading too many GB of pirated movies, I guess, as well as people being afraid somebody will use it for kiddy pr)n and get you in trouble.
Honestly the Open Wifi argument shouldn't really be needed. Using an IP address as the only evidence for a crime is simply ridiculous. Not much different than your car being at the scene being all it takes to convict you of a crime.
An IP address or MAC address would be a reasonable cause for a search warrant, but if investigators never find more information than just an IP address the case should clearly be dropped. This had to of been one of the easiest cases for this court of appeals in a long while.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Actually, no. The overturned verdict rates are below:
6th Circuit - 87 percent;
11th Circuit - 85 percent;
9th Circuit - 79 percent;
3rd Circuit - 78 percent;
2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent;
8th Circuit - 67 percent;
5th Circuit - 66 percent;
7th Circuit - 48 percent;
DC Circuit - 45 percent;
1st Circuit and 4th Circuit - 43 percent;
10th Circuit - 42 percent.
Yeah that's what I though.
This was a common sense ruling beings nat routers and wifi are common many users share the same IP address.
Actually, it isn't That distinction goes to the 6th and 11th. Read the article for a more detailed analysis, based on the different ways these rates are calculated.
6th Circuit - 87 percent;
11th Circuit - 85 percent;
9th Circuit - 79 percent;
3rd Circuit - 78 percent;
2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent;
8th Circuit - 67 percent;
5th Circuit - 66 percent;
7th Circuit - 48 percent;
DC Circuit - 45 percent;
1st Circuit and 4th Circuit - 43 percent;
10th Circuit - 42 percent.
I expect the various copyright groups will now begin lobbying for a law requiring ISPs to use the device cameras to take a photo of whoever is at the terminal before allowing any sizeable file to be downloaded. Or perhaps just continuous video surveillance while you're connected to the ISP. As we've seen many times, anything that provides plausible deniability to copyright infringement becomes a major target of legislation by the major content providers.
No, easier - expect the ISPs (many of whom are also cable providers and copyright holders) to start inserting a line in the ToS that the subscriber accepts all liability for any acts of infringement on their internal network, regardless of whether it's a third party using their open WiFi.
Do they have DNA and the glove?
I don't care if they guy did download the film, he's suffered enough. Hell, he should sue _them_.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
criminal liability does not work that way and the ISP will need to prove that it's logs are good and based on there cap meters that are off that can be used in court to say that there logs are not usable in court.
This is similar to just because you were at a store when it was robbed, doesn't mean you robbed it. Also, given the metaphor it you wouldn't expect the store to go after you to recoup some of the loss because you were there and might have been involved.
Now if you want to make the case that I was complicit because I didn't stop it; well then why didn't the ISP stop it, why didn't the backbone providers stop it, why didn't the other guy(s) ISP stop it.
No, the real problem is that content holders have the expectation that their product should cost a certain sum of money; now the consumer of that product doesn't see the same value and is unwilling to pay that. They then look for alternatives and if they are persistent will eventual find it for free, at which point the content holder cries foul that they didn't their cost point.
There is a saying in the housing market, if you house doesn't sell in 30 days, it's over priced.
Or another perspective, you leave a gun sitting out on your front porch, and someone takes it and shoots someone.
criminal liability does not work that way and the ISP will need to prove that it's logs are good and based on there cap meters that are off that can be used in court to say that there logs are not usable in court.
I never mentioned criminal liability, and this case was not about criminal liability, but civil liability for copyright infringement. Civil liability most certainly can work that way.
And yes, the ISP will need to prove that its logs are good that this subscriber had that IP address at said time, but that's not hard at all - in fact, it's a necessary function of being a service provider: you can't receive packets if the ISP has the wrong address for you. It's like the phone company sending calls to a different phone number than yours - your calls simply won't go through. Cap metering is an entirely different issue.
These are ridiculously high overturn rates. What's wrong with your court system?
Now ask yourself, if the cops said my car ran someone over, would any criminal judge or appeals panel in their right minds believe that "the bare allegation that defendant owns the car is insufficient to support criminal charges"?.
Perhaps if you actually owned an IP address. Most people don't though.
Your analogy would be more apt if the person committing the crime was using a stolen rental car.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
I have been running an open wifi in a densely populated city neighborhood since Jan 2012. Average about 30 unique visitors per day, 180 per month ... I blocked all ports other than well known commonly used ones like 80, 443, etc. Kind of screwed up Skype but who cares. Not once has anyone even attempted to torrent anything. Nowadays it's almost all Iphones and android. I don't think they have the capability of torrenting. Many of their users may not know they connect every time they walk by. It would be interesting to see if other parts of the city are different, like those with a lot of teenagers.
When I first moved in to my apartment, I was so grateful for a neighbor's open wifi that when I got my own installed, I left a guest network open for the express purpose of helping out any new neighbors.
I didn't rate limit it, but I did make sure that DNS was served by OpenDNS with filtering and that any other DNS was blocked.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Some of the reason that people don't like leaving open wifi around to, is that it attracts outsiders to loiter around you and your neighbors house and homes. While some of the people that would use free wifi, are middle class people just needing to get on the net for a quick second like you mentioned needing to do. In todays era of net addiction in the general population, and the fact that it's mostly poor and teenagers who don't have their own data plans and roam on wifi all day. Having an open wifi, would tend to attract poor, near-homeless, and teenagers to your house that will hang out in your front yard all day (and day after day) using your wifi. And while I don't have a problem with giving away a bit of wifi, how do you know if someone that is lurking around your house, and sitting on your curb all day is innocently using your wifi, or because they are casing your property or the neighbors property and learning when people come and go.
again, if it was just someone stopping in their car, connecting for 10-15mins and then moving along, then fine, no problem. But, if it's one, two or a group of people on foot, standing around for hours outside your house, in your driveway, and so on like loiterers do in front of a liquor store, then I'm not ok with encouraging that.
Was this the case of torrenting or streaming?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
As a really helpful AC stated, the Supreme Court doesn't take all cases, so 79% overturned is not 79% of all cases, but 79% of cases that make it to the Supreme Court. The ones that don't make it to the Supreme Court are implictly confirmed.
This is a good ruling, but don't rely on that alone to protect your privacy. Use TOR and/or a VPN.
Well poor logs of Cap metering is an reasonable doubt issue more so in an criminal setting.
These are not the overall rates, but the rates of cases that get SCOTUS review. Cases only get a full blown review if 4 Justices vote for review (i.e. the arguments are eventually presented and ruled on). The Justices being pretty clever folk, the typical case that the SCOTUS hears arguments for are ones where both (1) 4 Justices are dissatisfied with the result from an Appellate Court, and (2) those 4 Justices believe they have a good chance of convincing a 5th Justice to go their way.
There are exceptions to the above. Sometimes two Appellate Courts have made perfectly reasonable rulings that happen to be in such conflict with each other that the SCOTUS feels obliged to get involved -- that federal law might be interpreted very differently state to state is a problem the SCOTUS was created to fix. Sometimes a case is sufficiently important that the SCOTUS feels obliged to rule in order to settle the matter with finality (e.g. Gore vs. Bush).
I believe they ship their routers configured to create an "xfinitywifi" hotspot any Comcast customer can connect to. The advantage is that when you're travelling you can often find a hotspot where a Comcast customer hasn't turned that "feature" off. But it also creates plausible deniability.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I torrent on my phone all the time, and through port 443 since im on a VPN NATing everything through your open WiFi... If you had really good hardware you could reject encapsulation but I doubt it...
position it strategically so that it covers any gaps that you may have a use for, set it open, rate limit it.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
One AC already posted part of the answer. The Supreme Court is the only court than can overturn the federal circuit courts. They get to decide which cases they hear, which are pretty limited in number. So they usually only choose to take cases that are likely to be overturned, are particularly controversial, or are of questionable Constitutionality. If it's fairly clear that they'll agree with the lower court, they refuse to hear the appeal and the lower ruling stands (and therefore doesn't bring down the overturn rate). They can also ask the lower court to reconsider a case, possibly in light of some other ruling, before deciding to hear it.
TL;DR version: the Supreme Court generally only hears cases with a reasonable chance of being overturned, the overturn rate is high.
Now ask yourself, if the cops said my car ran someone over, would any criminal judge or appeals panel in their right minds believe that "the bare allegation that defendant owns the car is insufficient to support criminal charges"?
Yes, they would. Rather, the police and district attorney's office would never end an investigation at finding out who owns the car. Being the owner of the car is certainly enough for the investigators to interview you, but if you tell the police (and they verify) that you were on vacation that week, they would be crazy to file criminal charges at that point.
Did you name it xfinitywifi? That will net you a ton of connections.
Cheap storage VM.
Atleast limit it to something reasonable, like 1% of your max speed, 10 Mbps/10 Mpbs, otherwise it will never hold up. Oh wait, 64 kbps probably is 1% of your max speed in America, where I hear just having 1 ISP option is considered competitive...
which is why you should logon to the router, change the default password, and disable the wifi...
nothing to see here - move along
I don't think they have the capability of torrenting.
Android definitely does. uTorrent is right there in the Play Store, you don't even have to side load.
Rather, the police and district attorney's office would never end an investigation at finding out who owns the car.
If you get a ticket in the mail from a red light camera in most cities, it doesn't even matter if you were driving. You must pay. And you can't appeal, or even go to court, because the cities pass laws saying all this is so.
You might ask, doesn't the Constitution guarantee me the right to a jury trail for any criminal matter, or any civil matter worth more than $20? Sure, the Constitution says that, but the laws just say "this is neither a criminal fine nor a civil matter, you just owe us money". Problem solved. A John Roberts would say "it's a tax".
Fortunately the MAFIAA has not yet distorted justice to this degree. Let's hope they don't start giving cities a cut of the action.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Taking control of the webcam whilst the ones and zeroes are being downloaded?
Requiem for the American Dream
Well poor logs of Cap metering is an reasonable doubt issue more so in an criminal setting.
In civil litigation, the standard is "more likely than not", not "beyond a reasonable doubt."
And ISPs can certainly show that your modem had a certain IP and received packets to that IP. Otherwise, they wouldn't be ISPs.
The vast majority of devices I see are Iphones. Since most all forwarding ports are blocked torrenting isn't going to work too well. There are always ways and someone determined could do it but then they would be flagged by a bandwidth monitor I check every now and then.
Not in my jurisdiction. If the car was not driven by the owner, the owner can identify the perpetrator and move the legal liability to the perpetrator. I'll bet it's the same in your jurisdiction -- it was written on the ticket and documentation that I received.