Bittorrent Judge Rules: You Are Not Your IP Address

[Baresark]

I agree with this court ruling. Would we rather have 100 fair-free people and 400 hoodlums pirating stuff out of jail...or would we want 500 people in jail no matter what they did or did not do?

John Locke said a similar thing. It's better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man goes to jail.

 

[sosolidshoe]

Brilliant, now if only a UK judge had the balls to issue a similar decision, we may finally see an end to this lunacy. It's getting to the point now where I'm seriously considering going on a "hacking tour" of the UK politicians who advocate for brutal copyright laws, just to show them how easy it is to make it appear that someone has done something online that they have, in fact, not done.

They'd likely change their tune when it's THEIR children, THEIR elderly parents, who're being sued out the arse for downloading a Barney MP3, rather than just us proles.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Finally, someone who understands that hacking can easily use IP addresses that are not their own.

Unfortunately, not quite. This judge went as far as leeching, but it's unclear if he knows about IP masking. However, this ruling combined with an IT expert pointing out that IP masks are a common tactic by hackers (with an explanation as to what that is for older courts/governments, *cou-Australia-gh*) could be used to get innocent people acquitted.

Hooray Establishment of Precedent!

It's a start. The Law really needs to put some precedent into understanding the techology it's trying to legislate over because the Criminals have already got it down pat.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Wow I am not going to state my opinion on the ruling mainly because I haven't yet formulated one. I am, however, going to applaud this judge for actually doing their research and getting their background down pat rather than being pressured into giving a quick decision.

 

[Xyphon]

Fuck ya Canada. That's how you have to go about these laws, the burden of proof is on the accuser, we are innocent until proven guilty.

He's actually a United States District Court judge. One assumes the Canadians were suing US residents, which is why he handled the case.

Psssst, John. It seems you've multi-posted this thread. >,>

 

[Irridium]

Its sad that the first thing I got out of this is that we have a porn company.

If there's one constant throughout the world, its that people like boobies. And booze.

OT: This. This I like. Props to the judge. This ruling will probably be appealed though, hopefully the next judge sides with the current ruling.

 

[Petromir]

Were IP address alone to convict, I thought they were mearly needed to know who's PCs you were intending to check for the illegal materials, an IP address alone shouldn't have been enough to dispel reasonable doubt surely?

 

[Verlander]

The internet continues to change everything... an incredible tool and an incredible weapon. We're gonna need to really rethink our society soon

 

[Wicky_42]

That's a bit more reasonable, especially if it catches on. Being able to threaten to sue someone, with only an IP address as evidence, hoping that the threat of bankrupting them in court will be enough to extort a settlement is a horrific practice, not sure how they've been allowed to get away with it, really.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Does tat say Orin KERR? Fucking right!!!

 

[Rayne870]

Its sad that the first thing I got out of this is that we have a porn company.

If there's one constant throughout the world, its that people like boobies. And booze.

OT: This. This I like. Props to the judge. This ruling will probably be appealed though, hopefully the next judge sides with the current ruling.

You speak the truth!

Sort of related to the topic, I wonder how this goes with something I read earlier about the advantage of not securing your wireless because it makes you less liable for things downloaded via your network.

can I link stuff like this...i dunno, apologies if im not allowed.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wireles.html

 

[OldGus]

Finally, someone who understands that hacking can easily use IP addresses that are not their own.

Unfortunately, not quite. This judge went as far as leeching, but it's unclear if he knows about IP masking. However, this ruling combined with an IT expert pointing out that IP masks are a common tactic by hackers (with an explanation as to what that is for older courts/governments, *cou-Australia-gh*) could be used to get innocent people acquitted.

Hooray Establishment of Precedent!

It's a start. The Law really needs to put some precedent into understanding the techology it's trying to legislate over because the Criminals have already got it down pat.

Ok, agreed. However, that's probably been true ever since centuries after people switched from killing people with rocks to killing people with stone tools (i.e. sharper rocks.)

 

[westx207]

While this decision does indeed set precedence for anti-Bittorrent cases to come, the fact that the case in question dealt with adult material may mean that other judges may be less inclined to hold it up as gospel truth.

Why? Is adult material not protected property? Are accusations of piracy to be handled with less or more gravity if they come from an adult media company? I don't see how it could be argued that tracking IPs in porno pirate cases is any different than other media piracy or even in hacking cases. "An IP is not a person" shouldn't be, from my admittedly only lightly informed perspective, contingent on who is accusing it or what the IP is accused of.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I agree with this court ruling. Would we rather have 100 fair-free people and 400 hoodlums pirating stuff out of jail...or would we want 500 people in jail no matter what they did or did not do?

John Locke said a similar thing. It's better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man goes to jail.

It's a pity false conviction statistics suggest about 5-10% of all people in prison are innocent of any crime...

 

[John Funk]

While this decision does indeed set precedence for anti-Bittorrent cases to come, the fact that the case in question dealt with adult material may mean that other judges may be less inclined to hold it up as gospel truth.

Why? Is adult material not protected property? Are accusations of piracy to be handled with less or more gravity if they come from an adult media company? I don't see how it could be argued that tracking IPs in porno pirate cases is any different than other media piracy or even in hacking cases. "An IP is not a person" shouldn't be, from my admittedly only lightly informed perspective, contingent on who is accusing it or what the IP is accused of.

Because you're dealing with material which is more tightly restricted than it might have been otherwise, and this can vary not just between countries but between individual states. A lawyer might have success arguing that this only replies to restricted material.

 

[skorpion352]

While this decision does indeed set precedence for anti-Bittorrent cases to come, the fact that the case in question dealt with adult material may mean that other judges may be less inclined to hold it up as gospel truth.

Why? Is adult material not protected property? Are accusations of piracy to be handled with less or more gravity if they come from an adult media company? I don't see how it could be argued that tracking IPs in porno pirate cases is any different than other media piracy or even in hacking cases. "An IP is not a person" shouldn't be, from my admittedly only lightly informed perspective, contingent on who is accusing it or what the IP is accused of.

Because you're dealing with material which is more tightly restricted than it might have been otherwise, and this can vary not just between countries but between individual states. A lawyer might have success arguing that this only replies to restricted material.

you could counter argue that all copyright material is restricted in that you need permission from the content owner to access it

 

[John Funk]

While this decision does indeed set precedence for anti-Bittorrent cases to come, the fact that the case in question dealt with adult material may mean that other judges may be less inclined to hold it up as gospel truth.

Why? Is adult material not protected property? Are accusations of piracy to be handled with less or more gravity if they come from an adult media company? I don't see how it could be argued that tracking IPs in porno pirate cases is any different than other media piracy or even in hacking cases. "An IP is not a person" shouldn't be, from my admittedly only lightly informed perspective, contingent on who is accusing it or what the IP is accused of.

Because you're dealing with material which is more tightly restricted than it might have been otherwise, and this can vary not just between countries but between individual states. A lawyer might have success arguing that this only replies to restricted material.

you could counter argue that all copyright material is restricted in that you need permission from the content owner to access it

You could. I am not making that argument either way, just saying that because you're dealing with restricted material it could be argued in a court that it's different.

 

[Red Albatross]

A judge with common sense? UNPOSSIBLE.

I may not agree with rampant piracy, but allowing copyright holders to throw lawsuits at IP addresses instead of people is a bad idea. Yes, it's the easiest way to get the massive settlements they're looking for (it's all for profit - if they wanted to stop piracy, they'd go after distributors more aggressively instead of just whoever they can get their hands on), but a person can't always be held responsible for what gets piped through their intertubes. With almost absolutely everything WiFi-capable these days, one tech-unsavvy person could find themselves in a world of trouble for things they didn't even do. THIS IS NOT OKAY. Glad the judge agrees.

 

[westx207]

While this decision does indeed set precedence for anti-Bittorrent cases to come, the fact that the case in question dealt with adult material may mean that other judges may be less inclined to hold it up as gospel truth.

Why? Is adult material not protected property? Are accusations of piracy to be handled with less or more gravity if they come from an adult media company? I don't see how it could be argued that tracking IPs in porno pirate cases is any different than other media piracy or even in hacking cases. "An IP is not a person" shouldn't be, from my admittedly only lightly informed perspective, contingent on who is accusing it or what the IP is accused of.

Because you're dealing with material which is more tightly restricted than it might have been otherwise, and this can vary not just between countries but between individual states. A lawyer might have success arguing that this only applies to restricted material.

Apologies, I still don't quite understand. My thought is that your identity isn't tied to your IP if it were downloading games any more than if it were downloading pornography. I don't see where the restriction status (logically) fits in. Does anyone care to clarify?

Edit: I just want to know, from anyone who might have more insight in these things, how it might be different.

 

[skorpion352]

While this decision does indeed set precedence for anti-Bittorrent cases to come, the fact that the case in question dealt with adult material may mean that other judges may be less inclined to hold it up as gospel truth.

Why? Is adult material not protected property? Are accusations of piracy to be handled with less or more gravity if they come from an adult media company? I don't see how it could be argued that tracking IPs in porno pirate cases is any different than other media piracy or even in hacking cases. "An IP is not a person" shouldn't be, from my admittedly only lightly informed perspective, contingent on who is accusing it or what the IP is accused of.

Because you're dealing with material which is more tightly restricted than it might have been otherwise, and this can vary not just between countries but between individual states. A lawyer might have success arguing that this only replies to restricted material.

you could counter argue that all copyright material is restricted in that you need permission from the content owner to access it

You could. I am not making that argument either way, just saying that because you're dealing with restricted material it could be argued in a court that it's different.

oh i agree. its also possible that from one country to another, and from one state to another, it could be treated differently. but at the very least it gives some precedent to argue that the ip isnt evedience of infringement on its own. i think the real test will be when that ip results in a search warrent which leads to infringed material being found and whether the warrent and related evidence is ruled admissable based soley on an ip. because if the ip isnt ruled to be evidence that a person has infringed, then technically any evidence foudn as a result of that ip could be thrown out.

but im not a lawyer and am basically just goign by what i have learned about law from watching cop shows on tv, so i could be completely wrong