An IP Address Does Not Identify a Person, Rules Judge

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]joe nate[/nom]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."[/citation]

You idiots didn't even read my damn comments. I said that the questions should be asked, not that I support demonizing the ignorant. I always come here and find that instead of actually reading a comment, people like to interpret what they read in a way that makes someone look like a retard when they bring up a valid point. I said that the questions should be asked because these anti-piracy assholes will try to use this to their advantage. Oh but of course, now that I brought it up, I must be on their side.

I wonder why I even come here when people are just trying to start fights over stupid shit just because they somehow managed to misunderstand a simple comment.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]mman74[/nom]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![/citation]
I think people, and a judge, disagree
As far as the law goes they have to look at the potential for guilt regardless of the severity of the crime involved, if there is any reasonable doubt that someone has commited any crime, be that murder, downloading movies, or stealing a packet of gum, then automatic ruling of guilt is no longer possible.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]ithurtswhenipee[/nom]I would be careful with the car running analogy. In many states it is illegal to leave your car running like that. Unattended ignition or something like that in MN.[/citation]
I'm sure they do, but if the car thief does a hit and run then the car owner is not responsible - he is trying to point out that you are not responsible for crimes commited by others due to your lack of security

 

[jackbling]

[citation][nom]ImDaTruth[/nom]All I hear is the rationalizing about stealing IP and how people are happy that this ruling makes it easier. As someone who used to do the whole "warez" thing with a Usenet binary account, etc., I know what it's all about. There's a word for it: Theft. And, there's no compelling justification for it. You don't get to decide how much money record labels can make, or movie studios, or TV networks (that rely upon ad revenue to pay for content). You only get to decide if you're going to be a thief. That's on you. Make all the excuses you want, but you're taking someone else's work without paying for it.[/citation]

I KNOW, RIGHT!??!?!

Thanks to all these people downloading the copies are disappearing off the shelves; I went to get a digital copy, AND THEY WERE ALL OUT!!!! apparently someone STOLE them all; thieves.

Get with the times homeslice, copying is not theft.

In a way downloading prevents crime; if i had purchased that new resident evil game, i would likely end up with arson charges. Instead, all i wasted was 20 minutes of my bandwidth, 5 minutes of play time, and 5-10 minutes installing/uninstalling/deleting.

And i will tack this on: No network is secure, period.

 

[techguy911]

[citation][nom]STravis[/nom]WiFi can be hacked in hours no matter the setting? You sir know not of what you speak.[/citation]

Better do your research i have been in the computer security field for 20 years.

"A flaw in a feature added to Wi-Fi, called Wi-Fi Protected Setup, allows WPA and WPA2 security to be bypassed and effectively broken in many situations."
There are many other exploits that can be used as well nothing in the computer world is secure.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]jackbling[/nom]I KNOW, RIGHT!??!?!Thanks to all these people downloading the copies are disappearing off the shelves; I went to get a digital copy, AND THEY WERE ALL OUT!!!! apparently someone STOLE them all; thieves.Get with the times homeslice, copying is not theft.In a way downloading prevents crime; if i had purchased that new resident evil game, i would likely end up with arson charges. Instead, all i wasted was 20 minutes of my bandwidth, 5 minutes of play time, and 5-10 minutes installing/uninstalling/deleting.And i will tack this on: No network is secure, period.[/citation]

Copying isn't stealing of the game, it's stealing of the money that the game costs. Sure, if you hadn't bought the game then then by downloading it they didn't lose anything that they should have gained, but by having something that costs money without paying for it or making a legally accepted exception (some stuff can be had if you do something such as getting other people to buy copies and then you get a freebie or something like that), you then have something that should have been paid for (thus earning the owner and relevant beneficiaries money) that was not paid for. It's technically not stealing, but it is practically stealing, even if they don't know you did it until you get caught.

Also, on your last sentence, it's not about the network being perfectly secure, it's about the owner at least putting some effort into securing it. It's harder to use a secure network that you weren't given access to than it is to use a non-secured network.

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I'm sure they do, but if the car thief does a hit and run then the car owner is not responsible - he is trying to point out that you are not responsible for crimes commited by others due to your lack of security[/citation]

That's kinda different. I think that a better analogy would be leaving spare keys for a store right in front of the doors (such as under a welcome mat). Should you be held responsible for a person who then comes in and rips every optical disk in the store? I don't think so, but maybe a small fine could be justified. I think that a small fine for someone who doesn't secure their network would be reasonable (small being under $100) if it's used for illegal purposes due to the neglect of the owners and/or administrators.

Even non-encrypted networks could require a password or something like that. For example, a lot of networks such as Optimum WiFi or stuff like that probably need a password of some sort to use, even though they aren't encrypted. I think that just having a password, even if it isn't encrypted, would be enough to keep most would-be illegal users off. Anyone else would probably need to be at least a some-what experienced hacker. I will not accept responsibility, even in the form of a small fine, for someone who breaks into my house, steals a gun, and shoots someone with it, but leaving the house unlocked and a gun on a table right in front of the door are two different things. I'm not responsible for someone who puts effort into breaking in so long as I put some effort into keeping them out.

 

[Christopher1]

[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]

Doesn't matter how well it 'sits' with a politician, intelligent or not. The bottom line is that we do not go out and grab everyone who is black when a black person is supposed to have committed a crime.

Judges are finally and rightly waking up to these facts and making rules based on common sense.

 

[Christopher1]

[citation][nom]Marfig[/nom]I would certainly not want to live in a country where it was ok for someone to illegally download content.[/citation]

What you miss, nitwit supreme and then some, is that most people have ALREADY paid for the stuff that they pirate, at least in regards to movies, TV shows, and music. How? CABLE AND SATELLITE TV!

Which nearly everyone in the United States and world pays for one or the other if it is available in their area.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Christopher1[/nom]What you miss, nitwit supreme and then some, is that most people have ALREADY paid for the stuff that they pirate, at least in regards to movies, TV shows, and music. How? CABLE AND SATELLITE TV!Which nearly everyone in the United States and world pays for one or the other if it is available in their area.[/citation]

That is not the same thing. It's not legal to pirate a song just because you heard it on the radio and the same applies to television. You don't pay for a license to have a copy of a show that you watch on the TV through your cable box when you pay your cable bill, you pay to watch it when it is on the TV. When you go out and buy a DVD or whatever, you are paying for the physical DVD and for a license to view the contents of the DVD.

Someone could come on and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this is correct.

 

[Uberragen21]

[citation][nom]ImDaTruth[/nom]All I hear is the rationalizing about stealing IP and how people are happy that this ruling makes it easier. As someone who used to do the whole "warez" thing with a Usenet binary account, etc., I know what it's all about. There's a word for it: Theft. And, there's no compelling justification for it. You don't get to decide how much money record labels can make, or movie studios, or TV networks (that rely upon ad revenue to pay for content). You only get to decide if you're going to be a thief. That's on you. Make all the excuses you want, but you're taking someone else's work without paying for it.[/citation]
Obviously you don't understand the implication of this ruling. This is less about theft, and more about corporations bringing lawsuits and financial burden to people without 100% proof of identity. An IP address does NOT prove you were the person behind the theft. You can't blame someone for something without having 100% positive proof of identification. US attorneys, and state governments are spending millions to prove wrongly accused criminals' innocence once 100% positive DNA proof comes to light.

This is no different. You can't bring a lawsuit or criminal charges without 100% proof you have the right guy, or you WILL be sued for millions.

It is however, a score for the Torrent crowd. Though, while there are many dumb Torrent people out there, it's incredibly easy to change your IP address (and MAC address) to minimize IP address identification from these suits.

 

[Guest]

The judge's assertion that ".. it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function.." is FALSE. If you were to perform a statistical analysis of the matter, you will find that it is DEFINITELY more likely that the owner of an IP address actually did the downloading OR at least knew it was happening.

Yes, there is a large minority of cases where the downloading is done surreptitiously and the owner of the IP address really has no idea, and it is for this reason that the judge's ruling is still sensible eventhough this one statement is not accurate.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]imuffin4[/nom]The judge's assertion that ".. it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function.." is FALSE. If you were to perform a statistical analysis of the matter, you will find that it is DEFINITELY more likely that the owner of an IP address actually did the downloading OR at least knew it was happening. Yes, there is a large minority of cases where the downloading is done surreptitiously and the owner of the IP address really has no idea, and it is for this reason that the judge's ruling is still sensible eventhough this one statement is not accurate.[/citation]

Have you ever heard of dynamic IP and WiFi?

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]imuffin4[/nom]The judge's assertion that ".. it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function.." is FALSE. If you were to perform a statistical analysis of the matter, you will find that it is DEFINITELY more likely that the owner of an IP address actually did the downloading OR at least knew it was happening. Yes, there is a large minority of cases where the downloading is done surreptitiously and the owner of the IP address really has no idea, and it is for this reason that the judge's ruling is still sensible eventhough this one statement is not accurate.[/citation]
Statistics doesn't prove one is guilty.