An IP Address Does Not Identify a Person, Rules Judge

[exfileme]

Another judge has ruled that you can't identify pirates based on IP addresses.

An IP Address Does Not Identify a Person, Rules Judge : Read more

 

[boiler1990]

Thank you, sir, for being intelligent amid the recent chaos of these broad lawsuits *tips hat*

 

[mman74]

I would say there is more than reasonable doubt in this area. Certainly it would be abhorrent to put someone away for murder on such tenuous evidence, but it seems like just because we are talking about big studios strong arming - what could clearly be innocent people into – into coughing up massive fines, then reasonable doubt no longer applies. Well I say, No!

 

[Delengowski]

Wow, someone with a brain; there is still hope.

 

[blazorthon]

If someone has an open/unsecured network, should they be held more accountable than someone who has a password protected network, even if it's not AES encrypted, or if it is? These questions should be asked too.

 

[Devoteicon]

Now only if there were more people working in politics that had the level of intelligence that this judge has... image the possibilities.

 

[CaedenV]

... things that will change with ipv6

 

[s3anister]

Seems legit.

 

[Guest]

finally somebody woke up. piracy will be there no matter what. Instead of forcing people to those costly fines, they should be given some option to buy the original content first. These massive fines have started a thug business. A daylight robbery. What if some of these people doing piracy r paid by the companies themselves so that they can lure and trap other people into these web.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]If someone has an open/unsecured network, should they be held more accountable than someone who has a password protected network, even if it's not AES encrypted, or if it is? These questions should be asked too.[/citation]

To whoever it was who down-voted me, I ask you this: Do you really think that the RIAA or whoever won't try something along these lines?

Their argument would be something like this: If someone leaves their WiFi network open to all because they don't secure it, then they are basically leaving the keys to a nuclear bomb with a map of where to find the bomb right on their front porch. The owners of a WiFi capable network should be held accountable for their heinous disregard for our property should some delinquent(s) use this insecure WiFi network that is basically just a silver platter.

Do you really think that these @$$es won't try something like this? What if they do and we don't get lucky and have a reasonable judge at the head of the decision?

 

[computernerdforlife]

In the picture: Patchy the pirate totally ruined every part of Spongebob. IP address... Patchy? GTFO of here. That ruined the whole context of this article for me.

As far as us long term Spongebob fans go, he SUCKS! If you don't believe me, believe Hasselhoff.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

in which case, you can still get internal IPs/MAC addresses from a home router if the courts have access to them. So if it's someone that passes by with a laptop, you can figure out who the culprit is not. I'm sure if the courts have sufficient access, they at least have the MAC address then, can figure out what kind of device it is, what OS License is attached to it and find the culprit that way.

Then there's that case of, if a friend comes over and borrows your stuff. Well, I think the owner or the person that allowed the culprit to use their stuff should be held accountable to a certain degree, too, maybe limited to a small fine, starting out at $100, then increasing for each offense.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]in which case, you can still get internal IPs/MAC addresses from a home router if the courts have access to them. So if it's someone that passes by with a laptop, you can figure out who the culprit is not. I'm sure if the courts have sufficient access, they at least have the MAC address then, can figure out what kind of device it is, what OS License is attached to it and find the culprit that way.Then there's that case of, if a friend comes over and borrows your stuff. Well, I think the owner or the person that allowed the culprit to use their stuff should be held accountable to a certain degree, too, maybe limited to a small fine, starting out at $100, then increasing for each offense.[/citation]
Or, just spoof everything. If I'm downloading massive amounts of files, I'm definitely going to use a clean OS with no trace to me, with a spoofed MAC address - along with everything else. Then just leave the area. Good luck finding me.

 

[atminside]

good man

 

[Marfig]

[citation][nom]Devoteicon[/nom]Now only if there were more people working in politics that had the level of intelligence that this judge has... image the possibilities.[/citation]

Careful what you wish for.

If an IP address doesn't identify a person, the obvious consequence is that currently there's no way to identify a person in the internet. Being this a medium through which crimes can be perpetrated, that may not sit well with an intelligent politician.

 

[wopr11]

Shows you that not all judges are idiots, corrupt, or a corporation's puppet (like most in the "supreme" court are).

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]wopr11[/nom]Shows you that not all judges are idiots, corrupt, or a corporation's puppet (like most in the "supreme" court are).[/citation]

Or, it shows us that someone wants us to think that not all judged are idiots, corrupt, or a corporation's puppet. This can be interpreted in many ways.

 

[shafe88]

Instead of focusing too much on the people who do the downloading, why not go to the source and start focusing on the people who do the uploading. That's like putting a bucket under a leaky roof expecting it to stop.

 

[nebun]

who has a insecure network these days? this is the work of greedy lawyers

 

[Guest]

judge probley uses tpb

 

[dg51]

[citation][nom]Marfig[/nom]Careful what you wish for.If an IP address doesn't identify a person, the obvious consequence is that currently there's no way to identify a person in the internet. Being this a medium through which crimes can be perpetrated, that may not sit well with an intelligent politician.[/citation]

Not entirely true. Sharing among the general public (over internet) is no different than sharing content with someone in a crowded hall. So, I think the difficulty in identifying the person (over internet or not) remains the same.

 

[Arls]

I don't feel bad for studios and record labels worth millions what so ever. The landscape and climate for media has changed....adapt or die. People are going to steal IP no matter what you do from this day forth and for ever. Its not about damage control, its about evolution.

 

[Guest]

You go on vacation, take the kids to Disney World.
While there, a pair of teenagers get loaded up on cheap beer, decide to break into your garage and take the minivan for a quick spin.
Doesn't turn out the way they had wished and wind up running over a few people on their joyride.
Should you be held responsible?

You secure your network to the best of your ability, but anyone with a good level of knowledge and access to a cloud server setup can crack your password/ key. Someone does and leaches gigs of illegal material of your secured router.
Is that your fault?
No, it's not.
Then again, there are no repercussions for end user stupidity, open networks and poorly secured ones. Plus most parents have the ignorance is bliss attitude and just let their kids do whatever they want on their computers/ tablets/ phones/ iPods.
But in all honesty the majority of the times, someone illegally downloading is doing it through their own network with a "I'm not one of those suckers who is going to get caught" attitude.
I don't want to sound like an ass here, but if you were charged by data use, you better believe people would take their security MUCH more seriously and would be happier to run out and buy something retail, and be more than happy to yank internet away from their kids if they were doing heavy downloading.

 

[shafe88]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]who has a insecure network these days? this is the work of greedy lawyers[/citation]
Public palaces with free internet,

 

[joe nate]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]If someone has an open/unsecured network, should they be held more accountable than someone who has a password protected network, even if it's not AES encrypted, or if it is? These questions should be asked too.[/citation]

So you're saying that if I am ignorant to the fact that certain everyday house hold chemicals could be used to make a explosive device I'm accountable for the person who trespasses into my house, went through my non-locked cabinet that had the everyday house hold chemicals, created a bomb and killed people with what they stole. You're saying that I would be more liable than someone who went out of their way to take the chemistry classes to know what was possible and specifically locked different types of chemicals in different cabinets, just so that they would be "less liable" in this ridiculous scenario?

Common sense. The Judge has it. You do not.

The problem with the lawsuit the record labels are using is they are saying they are suing the people who pay for the internet access not the one who do the crime. All the judge is saying is "Get the evidence of who actually did it, rather than blaming it on the first name you come across tied to the IP, because that isn't evidence. it's a starting point in your search."