Another Judge Rules IP Addresses Can't be Used to Identify People
May 5, 2012 10:26 PM
comment(s) - last by
Common sense appears to be triumphing in the legal system
The internet is perhaps the greatest disruptor of the twentieth century, despite only rising to relevance at its close. Today it remains a
perplexing problem to politicians
I. Internet Disrupts, Leads to Punitive Reactionary Efforts
Perhaps no internet controversy represents the confusion and mire of digital rights and law enforcement better than the legal precedent of equating internet protocol (IP) addresses to a human being.
For years U.S. courts allowed copyright "attack dog" organizations like the
Recording Industry Association of America
(RIAA) to use this principle in threat letter schemes -- which many advocates argue were digital age extortion. The issue is that internet proxies are not people. Indeed, a large percentage of networks -- be they secured or unsecured -- have multiple users, making the RIAA's view of pinning infringement on the IP owner a problematic oversimplification.
Piracy has led to an arguably abusive response from content creators. [Image Source: RIAA]
And that's not to mention the pervasive hacking of wireless networks across the U.S. (or in many cases simple
squatting on unsecured networks
) -- a practice that likely has led to many of the RIAA,
more flagrant efforts
, such as threat letters to dead people or the elderly. The ease with which the majority of secured private wireless networks can be penetrated further calls into question enforcing infringement on an IP basis.
The legal system is
finally waking up
to that reality.
II. Adult Filmmakers' Threat Letter Bid Killed
In a recent ruling in a case regarding RIAA-esque extortion efforts by a group of lawyers representing adult filmmakers,
New York Eastern District federal court
Judge Gary Brown
blasted the idea of presenting infringing IPs as sufficient evidence to demand money from individuals or take them to court.
K-Beech - Order & Report & Recommendation (Ordered 5-1-12)
(To be fair not everyone in the adult film industry agrees with threatening possible pirates. Some
view it as free promotion
Judge Brown warns the plaintifffs that IPs are not sufficient evidence to prosecute, stating:
John Doe #16 has stated that he was at work at the time of the alleged download. John Doe #2 states under oath that he closed the subject Earthlink account, which had been compromised by a hacker, before the alleged download. John Doe #29’s counsel represents that his client is an octogenarian with neither the wherewithal nor the interest in using BitTorrent to download Gang Bang Virgins. John Doe #10 represents that downloading a copy of this film is contrary to her "religious, moral, ethical and personal views." Equally important, she notes that her wireless router was not secured and she lives near a municipal parking lot, thus providing access to countless neighbors and passersby.
While a decade ago, home wireless networks were nearly non-existent, 61% of US homes now have wireless access. As a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices – which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals.
Different family members, or even visitors, could have performed the alleged downloads. Unless the wireless router has been appropriately secured (and in some cases, even if it has been secured), neighbors or passersby could access the Internet using the IP address assigned to a particular subscriber and download the plaintiff’s film.
He also cites a colleagues dismissal of a similar case, writing:
Plaintiff's counsel estimated that 30 percent of the names turned over by ISPs are not those of individuals who actually downloaded or shared copyrighted material. Counsel stated that the true offender is often the "teenaged son ... or the boyfriend if it's a lady." Alternatively, the perpetrator might turn out to be a neighbor in an apartment building that uses shared IP addresses or a dormitory that uses shared wireless networks. This risk of false positives gives rise to the potential for coercing unjust settlements from innocent defendants such as individuals who want to avoid the embarrassment of having their names publicly associated with allegations of illegally downloading "My Little Panties # 2."
Finally, he points out that the plaintiffs don't seem very interested in actually enforcing anti-infringement by taking the defendants to court -- rather they're seeking a quick settlement:
Upon receipt of the Complaint, I reached out to Plaintiff and spoke to a self-described “Negotiator” in an effort to see if I could prove to them (without the need for publicly tying my name to the Complaint) that I had nothing to do with the alleged copyright infringements. The Negotiator was offered unfettered access to my computer, my employment records, and any other discovery they may need to show that I was not the culpable party. Instead, the Negotiator refused and was only willing to settle the Complaint for thousands of dollars. While the Negotiator said on October 24, 2011 that he would check to see if he could come down from the thousands of dollar settlement amount, the Negotiator has not responded to two voice mails that were left on October 25, 2011. Notably, the Negotiator justified the settlement amount because, in part, I would incur legal fees in hiring an attorney.
IV. The Fallout
This remark offers a not so subtle hint that some judges are starting to view these kinds of
as exactly what the majority in the public view them as -- extortion schemes.
Of course a handful of rulings -- even at the federal level -- won't be enough to stop the persistent efforts of the RIAA and other copyright extorters. But as they pile up, the legal costs of these losses may at long last force the media industry (including the adult film industry) to reevaluate its
already money-losing approach with respect to copyright enforcement
The happy days of an open season on threat letters may be over for the RIAA,
[Image Source: Grist]
It may seem a bit sad that the digital era has enabled the public to steal media makers work, while providing them such little recourse (although many studies have indicated piracy has not effect media revenue). But it's hardly better to prop up a system of threats under which the innocent are often punitiviely punished while the the guilty often escape scott-free.
The legal system is slowly warming up to the idea that despite the painful financial implications of the internet, it is unacceptable to support such a flagrant mass violation of civil liberties.
Fight Copyright Trolls
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Shutdown the Source
5/6/2012 5:57:49 PM
Piracy is wrong and should not be condoned,nonetheless these judges are spot on in their rulings,you cannot definitively tie an IP to an individual with NAT and wireless routers the permutations are many. Try shutting down the sources,het a court order and have ISPs block illegal content providers simple as that.
RE: Shutdown the Source
5/6/2012 6:28:52 PM
Blocking should require a court order, and websites can change their domain as easy as pie (entire pirate bay can be compressed into a few hundred megabytes), and then domainless protocols might be developed and the site be randomly distributed among a million peers.
I forgot a period there, but the best media publishers can do is be polite and humble to their customers and use a good distribution system that is easier and more pleasant than BitTorrent. iTunes and Steam are excellent examples, appeal to the customers so they would prefer to support their favourite artists and game developers. You can compete with free.
Censorship is a dangeorus path to take. Once effective systems are in place the can easily be used for political agendas. The Internet has an unmatched democratic role, and we must be vigilant.
"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot
Ex-Senate Dem. Dodd "Confident" Obama is Quietly Drafting SOPA Subsitute
April 6, 2012, 6:02 PM
MPAA: DVD Ripping Hurts Users, Cuts Their "Options" (to Repurchase Content)
February 16, 2012, 5:30 PM
RIAA Likely Paid Over $3M to Sue Jammie Thomas-Rasset, Only Gets $54K in the End
July 25, 2011, 10:34 AM
U.S. Copyright Group is Now Suing Nearly 50,000 U.S. Citizens for Piracy
May 24, 2011, 10:02 AM
U.S. Legal System Finally Figures Out IP Address != Specific Person
May 4, 2011, 3:07 PM
Twitter Senior VP: "Diversity is Important, But We Can’t Lower the Bar"
November 9, 2015, 9:59 AM
CNN Resorts to Internet Censorship to Promote Clinton Over Senator Sanders
October 15, 2015, 2:47 PM
Breaking Bad: How to Crash Google's Chrome Browser With Just 8 Characters
September 23, 2015, 11:08 AM
Quick Note: Amazon UK Offers £10 Back on Any Order £50 or Over
August 3, 2015, 12:05 PM
Editorial: Reddit Allows Itself to be Hijacked as a Hate Platform For Racist Bigots
July 21, 2015, 6:32 PM
Mozilla and Facebook to Adobe: It's Time to Kill Flash
July 20, 2015, 6:30 PM
Most Popular Articles
iPhones May Get Curved Screens Next Year
August 24, 2016, 6:45 AM
Drones at the Airport
August 26, 2016, 5:00 AM
5 Easy Ways to Lower Blood Pressure By Monique C. Bethell, Ph.D.
August 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
2 NEW PlayStation 4 Models - Unveiling September 7th
August 23, 2016, 6:23 AM
First Apple Computer Auctions for $815,000
August 27, 2016, 7:51 AM
Latest Blog Posts
First Self-Driving Car debut on the streets of Singapore
Aug 28, 2016, 4:10 PM
Coming Soon - Drones and Airports
Aug 24, 2016, 12:40 PM
SolarCity’s Gigafactory: A Milesone in Emerging Technology by Lily Emamian - 15 August 2016
Aug 15, 2016, 6:30 AM
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information