Ruling: IP address does not identify person

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But, once the proof is there that it's your IP address, then either you take the fine, or you state who was responsible, just like you do with a speed camera conviction. Is that unreasonable?

Not only is it unreasonable, it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.

The car analogy is silly. This isn't a physical object where the average person can be aware of where it is and who is using it. Most users probably have no idea if someone else is using their IP address, and have no way of finding out. Holding them responsible for anything done with that IP is just absurd.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by teh603

So here's a question- have you spoofed his hostname? If not, then he could pull his router's system logs (if the defense can get access to them, which is unlikely in some jurisdictions), point to the fact that "someone else" was logged in via wifi and was downloading the torrents, and when none of his hardware has that hostname he arguably gets off.

Course, that depends upon how computer-savvy the judge and jury are, and if the prosecution allows him access to the hardware to get the router's system logs. Down here, most defense attorneys barely get access to the prosecution's case folder, much less the actual evidence.

We also have so few judges that the docket is perpetually overcrowded, don't seem to have the budget to hire more, and a history of predatory District Attorneys.

Most routers have logs off by default. And if you don't know how to properly set up the security, you won't have the logs on.

[morantis]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

This is interesting an ruling.


http://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-...person-120503/

I don't know if a ruling from a New York magistrate judge can qualify as 'landmark' but it is a kick in the nads to the RIAA. The article is fairly detailed as to the 'why' of the ruling, most of which is obvious to anyone with a router. Other judges in other cases have alluded to this issue but never have they thrown out cases based solely upon it while recommending that other judges do the same.

My current IP is 192.168.1.113
That really sums it up, doesn't it? Sure, My ISP provider gives my house a public IP addy, but once it gets to my router, it's private IP all the way down, just like turtles. My house is a bit less populated of late (with most of the boys grown and gone) but at any given time in years past, my router table had more than a dozen active private IP connections, sometimes quite a few more; desktops, laptops, ipads, xboxes, playstations, android phones. In addition to my own little potential pirates, they invite their little friend pirates over for various computer/game-related activities; every single one using my internet gateway. Add some nieces, nephews, friends and other family, I've got a potential multi-billion dollar lawsuit hanging over my head!

To start with, ""192.168.1.113"" is not going to be visible to anyone outside your private network. If an IP address is used to track internet activity to your home, it will be through the public IP, then if additional investigation was necessary, the routing table could be pulled from the router.

In response to the legal ruling, I will have to research it further, but let us not overstate the analogy to a car's tag number. No one has ever been convicted of anything based solely on a tag number and no one ever will. If me or someone else uses my car to commit a crime and the tag number is reported, then the police will either come to my home and question me, or I will be arrested and questioned. If my neighbor across the street kills his wife and uses my car to dump the body, and a witness reports the tag number, I guarantee that there will be a deeper investigation than, oh you must have done it because your car was used.

[Rob Lister]

[QUOTE=morantis;2075943]To start with, ""192.168.1.113"" is not going to be visible to anyone outside your private network. If an IP address is used to track internet activity to your home, it will be through the public IP, then if additional investigation was necessary, the routing table could be pulled from the router. [quote]

Have you read the thread? I'm aware of the difference between a public and private IP. That wasn't an oversight, an error, or a misunderstanding of networking on my part. It was the point. To be more clear, my public facing IP maps to multiple private IP's. As to the routing tables (sic), this thread contains numerous posts as to why that is not really relevant; here's a hint as to why:

[zzroger]

My take on this is. The investigators spotting your IP being used for downloading a torrent.
We will have to assume that the investigator's word is accepted by law, or, they must have evidence of some sort to say that that IP was being shown.
If that evidence does show (acceptable by legal standards) that that IP was used, then an application is made to the ISP as to whom was using that IP address at that time.
Again, assuming that the users name that comes up is yours, at this point 'in balance of probability' then you were the registered user of that IP address. There is no absolute proof. Just a probability. Errors have been known to occur.
If we then throw in some doubt as to who was actually downloading at that time, then that previous balance of probability alters in the defendents favour.
There will be no 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that's not at issue in this type of trial.
But as someone said above, lets let the penalty suit the crime, if the judge decides that 'on balance of probability' you commited this breach (copyright infringement is not a crime, it's a civil issue), but the probability is skewed a tad toward the defendent, then fine the defendent a salutary amount and smack the wrist. If the judge has a high degree of certainty, then award damages to the amount of damage. Which in my opinion is, not a lot.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by zzroger

Again, assuming that the users name that comes up is yours, at this point 'in balance of probability' then you were the registered user of that IP address. There is no absolute proof. Just a probability.

I am the 'registered user' since I pay the ISP bill.


If on my network there are 5 users, then the raw probability that I visited any given site associated with my public facing ip is .2

Something above .5 is required for a preponderance of the evidence.

So for that standard of proof, you need additional discovery.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Oh well, given that the law appears to favour your viewpoint, I guess you don't have to worry too much about my warped views about the way the world should be becoming a reality, do you? It concerns me deeply, though, that the criminal appears to be being given a "get out of jail free" card here. "Oh it wasn't me, officer. Someone else must have used my IP connection!".

Wasn't it "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by zzroger

... if the judge decides that 'on balance of probability' you commited this breach (copyright infringement is not a crime, it's a civil issue), but the probability is skewed a tad toward the defendent, then fine the defendent a salutary amount and smack the wrist. If the judge has a high degree of certainty, then award damages to the amount of damage. Which in my opinion is, not a lot.

Currently, judges don't get to assign fines without a trial, and the defendant having the right to present evidence indicating their lack of guilt. Judges don't get to have a "high degree of certainty" without hearing evidence from both sides.

Also, the plaintiffs here are often claiming the damages done are worth the full amount that copyright law allows, up to ~$150,000 per violation.

[covingtoncat73]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

Things are different here. I admit, I've never searched for child porn at a public wifi, but I doubt if I would have much trouble using BitTorrent at the local Panera. Or how about a Gnutella client that doesn't even require me to have a browser open, once I've accessed the network?

And, leaving for a moment the realm of copyrighted material, and going back to criminal matters, how about if I commit fraud from a public wifi? No netnanny is going to block a bank site or other financial institution.

I can confirm they are different. Many public and quasi-public libraries (if not all) have unfiltered Internet here. I have heard of news stories and court cases about this. I know many coffeehouses with free WiFi but I've never gone to any site that might be filtered, so can't tell.

[morantis]

[QUOTE=Rob Lister;2076163][QUOTE=morantis;2075943]To start with, ""192.168.1.113"" is not going to be visible to anyone outside your private network. If an IP address is used to track internet activity to your home, it will be through the public IP, then if additional investigation was necessary, the routing table could be pulled from the router.

Have you read the thread? I'm aware of the difference between a public and private IP. That wasn't an oversight, an error, or a misunderstanding of networking on my part. It was the point. To be more clear, my public facing IP maps to multiple private IP's. As to the routing tables (sic), this thread contains numerous posts as to why that is not really relevant; here's a hint as to why:

Just to let you know, having the logging function disabled on the router does not stop logs from being created, you simply don't have access to them through the consumer or administrator interface. I can go into any router anywhere anytime and pull every website visited, providing that it is not five years ago and the logs have gone past the allocated size, but I guarantee that I can pull at least 3 to 4 years worth of logs.

[zzroger]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

I am the 'registered user' since I pay the ISP bill.


If on my network there are 5 users, then the raw probability that I visited any given site associated with my public facing ip is .2

Something above .5 is required for a preponderance of the evidence.

So for that standard of proof, you need additional discovery.

That is my point entirely.
There is a start probability and that is, that the IP address discovered by the accuser was associated with 'you'.
Your point of 5 users has now diluted that probability.

Basically what it all comes down to is, in law someone who downloads a file should be not be worth prosecuting.
If it can be proven that that IP address is associated with the originator of the file, then the case should go to court and a penalty levied, if found true. After all, the original poster had the intent to allow others to copy that file. That person is causing damage to the copyright holder.
The ones who make a copy are 'most likely' making said copy for their own use. Still in breach of copyright, yes, but not worth pursuing for damage.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zzroger

The ones who make a copy are 'most likely' making said copy for their own use. Still in breach of copyright, yes, but not worth pursuing for damage.

So you reckon that if someone illegally downloads a copy of my software rather than buying it, the law shouldn't give me any means of compensation because it's not worth pursuing? Not worth it for whom? Me, or the law?

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by morantis

Just to let you know, having the logging function disabled on the router does not stop logs from being created, you simply don't have access to them through the consumer or administrator interface. I can go into any router anywhere anytime and pull every website visited, providing that it is not five years ago and the logs have gone past the allocated size, but I guarantee that I can pull at least 3 to 4 years worth of logs.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any?

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any?

+1

Would really like to see this.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

It is unreasonable to expect the same lax standards of proof for conviction for a trivial speeding misdemeanour and an act of piracy that could end up costing an innocent party thousands of dollars.

I disagree. Speeders and people running red lights kill innocent bystanders. Where I'm from, life is worth more than a couple thousand dollars of lost potential revenue.