Bittorrent Judge Rules: You Are Not Your IP Address

[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...

Haha, I can't help but question that statistic. I mean, they would have to know for sure that innocent people are in jail. And if they know they are innocent, they shouldn't be there.

America has the largest prison population in the world. That same percentage means there are between 360k and 720k people in jail here, that are innocent.

Like most statistics of that nature, it's essentially a 'population study'. That means it's looking at the evidence of all cases where someone was convicted, put in prison, then released later on due to new evidence coming to light that proves they didn't do it.

Now, inferring things from something like that is always a bit uncertain.
So, no, it doesn't say we know who is in prison that's innocent. (Or that this is guaranteed to be a valid generalisation of the cases it's based on.)

But even so, that's what the evidence of cases that were overturned suggest.

What's worst about it is that the statistics for wrongful convictions is highest with murder cases that involve the death penalty.

 

[westx207]

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...

Haha, I can't help but question that statistic. I mean, they would have to know for sure that innocent people are in jail. And if they know they are innocent, they shouldn't be there.

America has the largest prison population in the world. That same percentage means there are between 360k and 720k people in jail here, that are innocent.

What's worst about it is that the statistics for wrongful convictions is highest with murder cases that involve the death penalty.

Could be that's just because of the higher degree of scrutiny these cases are subject to.

 

[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...

Haha, I can't help but question that statistic. I mean, they would have to know for sure that innocent people are in jail. And if they know they are innocent, they shouldn't be there.

America has the largest prison population in the world. That same percentage means there are between 360k and 720k people in jail here, that are innocent.

What's worst about it is that the statistics for wrongful convictions is highest with murder cases that involve the death penalty.

Could be that's just because of the higher degree of scrutiny these cases are subject to.

Probably also has to do with DNA evidence.

A lot of such cases got overturned like 10-20 years after the fact. (Which is a bit ironic considering it's the death penalty. Just goes to show how difficult it is to get someone executed.)

 

[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.

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

Haha, I can't help but question that statistic. I mean, they would have to know for sure that innocent people are in jail. And if they know they are innocent, they shouldn't be there.

America has the largest prison population in the world. That same percentage means there are between 360k and 720k people in jail here, that are innocent.

Like most statistics of that nature, it's essentially a 'population study'. That means it's looking at the evidence of all cases where someone was convicted, put in prison, then released later on due to new evidence coming to light that proves they didn't do it.

Now, inferring things from something like that is always a bit uncertain.
So, no, it doesn't say we know who is in prison that's innocent. (Or that this is guaranteed to be a valid generalisation of the cases it's based on.)

But even so, that's what the evidence of cases that were overturned suggest.

What's worst about it is that the statistics for wrongful convictions is highest with murder cases that involve the death penalty.

I hadn't thought about that from the other end. Good call on correcting me, thank you. You are completely right of course, scary statistic. It's in alignment with what I knew previously though. When police seek out a criminal, they aren't necessarily interested in the right one as much as someone who can be proven guilty.

 

[Belated]

Hell, it's about time the legal system started taking interest in the innocent. Big corporations should have the bare minimum amount of rights as needed for the success of business. No more. They should be at the mercy of regulation 24/7. Bitches bound and stepped on by the boots of the working class. This is just one example of such regulation.

It's not much of an example, but it's a step in the right direction. The war between corporations and the people is not just about wages and work hours. It's also about companies mistreating civilians. Like the news article says, it's pretty much extortion that these guys were doing. But extortion is legal if you're rich, apparently. There's no way to prove the kinds of losses they usually claim. So let's just prevent them from being able to claim anything. I like this idea.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

So we're now somewhat less likely to see Activision V. 192.168.10.25? That's fine.

 

[SemiHumanTarget]

This is a win for privacy and intellectual freedom. The US has some of the most absurd copyright laws in the entire world and it's good to see a judgment finally favor the consumer.

The subject of downloading something should not be so black and white in the eyes of the law. If a consumer, for example, purchases an item for download online and has their hard drive wiped, the artist has the right to charge the consumer again for that property under current US law. That's total bull, and in my opinion, totally warrants the right to pirate a second copy.

We have to keep in mind that there are no "artists" anymore, only corporations and entities. When they band together like that, it becomes all too easy to oppress the consumer, and current US copyright law absolutely enables that. It's obviously unjust and, regardless of whether or not you think it's unsavory, piracy is healthy for the industry and is something that should be tackled on a case by case basis.

 

[manaman]

I was very nearly the victim of the same. I was sent a letter by my ISP, stating the claim by the company as a matter of fact, and that future violations could result in them terminating my service. A few days later a letter showed up from a law firm on the subject.

At the time I ran a small business and I contacted my lawyer, and he referred me to another lawyer who specialized in these types of cases. I was never contacted by the firm threatening after that. Problem is not everyone can afford that route.

I would love to see more precedent like this, and more then that would love to see a major class action lawsuit against some of these lawsuit mills. This kind of behavior is nothing new, and as soon as precedents are set in one area, a new one is found for these predators to sink their teeth into. More then just seeing it stop concerning copyright and torrents, I would love to see these practices killed in their entirety.

 

[skorpion352]

this is going to be interesting. with the new copyright law that was passed here in new zealand last month, this case coudl potentially make that law useless, as under the new law content owners (read: multination corps ownign rights to music/movies) only need an ip address and after 3 warnings your internet connection can be cut. and if an ip address on its own isnt evidence of infringement, then that law is useless

It's also up to the providers discretion, isn't it? Which has them with a conflict of interest since their customers, at least for the more expensive plans, are pirates, and cutting them off or even discouraging them lowers their own profits.

Granted I'm not too familiar with the law, I don't really see it affecting me or even working out.

i wouldnt say all people on the highest plans are pirates, but its a good bet that a lot of them are. i know of a couple of people that live in flats with other gamers, and 4 or 5 gamers sharing a connection would go through a lot of data, without including casual internet usage. of course here in new zealand we tend to watch our internet activity due to the stupid data caps we have as it can get expensive if we dont. ive heard of cases of internet bills of several hundred dollars for a months usage due to excessive downloading and i think there was even a case of someone having thier home network hacked and ended up with a bill of several thousand

 

[OutforEC]

The subject of downloading something should not be so black and white in the eyes of the law. If a consumer, for example, purchases an item for download online and has their hard drive wiped, the artist has the right to charge the consumer again for that property under current US law. That's total bull, and in my opinion, totally warrants the right to pirate a second copy.

Again, as alluded to earlier in the thread you should be held responsible for your own decisions in life, and this includes backing up your media. If I purchase something and through my own negligence I lose the ability to use it, I should be required to re-purchase. Just because I made a mixed tape back in 1988 doesn't give me the right to download all those songs again just because I want to save a couple bucks.

 

[SemiHumanTarget]

What are you, an industry rep? Did you know that it's now illegal for a friend to copy something that you bought and loaned to them, even if you don't make any profit from it? This was a basic cornerstone of copyright law until very recently. There is no doubt that consumer rights are dwindling year after year, and the phenomena is confined mostly to the United States.

It's no good for anybody to create animosity between consumer and provider, but US copyright law basically protects the provider only, enabling them to dictate the rules. The difference between having a physical copy of something and having downloaded something is that no matter how well you take care of your hard drive, one day it's going to crash, or someone will hack your system, or you will buy a new computer, and on and on. If I buy a new CD player, I can still play old CDs on it. Can I do the same with downloaded material? Not if the producers have anything to say about it.

 

[FalloutJack]

This sounds like a bit from Fight Club.

 

[UltimatheChosen]

Hm. That's definitely interesting.

I can see where the judge is coming from, and he definitely has a point there. I'm just a bit concerned that this will make pirates feel safer. But it's not worth suing regular people just to catch criminals, and I'm not sure if there's a better solution.

He kinda has a point, but at the same time, I would say that you are responsible for your ISP. If you choose not to secure your wireless, then you should have to live with the consequences. This is just another way to take away responsibility from individuals.

Well, it's a question of degree.

If it were a crime to leave your network unguarded, then sure, charge them with that. But charging people for crimes that someone else committed on their network while the actual perpetrators slip past the radar is something else entirely.

 

[jakefongloo]

Hm. That's definitely interesting.

I can see where the judge is coming from, and he definitely has a point there. I'm just a bit concerned that this will make pirates feel safer. But it's not worth suing regular people just to catch criminals, and I'm not sure if there's a better solution.

I've always stood on the batman side of things. If sacrificing innocents is required to catch the bad guys than it's not worth it. Things just...work if you have a little faith.

 

[jakefongloo]

The subject of downloading something should not be so black and white in the eyes of the law. If a consumer, for example, purchases an item for download online and has their hard drive wiped, the artist has the right to charge the consumer again for that property under current US law. That's total bull, and in my opinion, totally warrants the right to pirate a second copy.

Again, as alluded to earlier in the thread you should be held responsible for your own decisions in life, and this includes backing up your media. If I purchase something and through my own negligence I lose the ability to use it, I should be required to re-purchase. Just because I made a mixed tape back in 1988 doesn't give me the right to download all those songs again just because I want to save a couple bucks.

I agree, but I have a problem with it when some shit stain is banking on the fact that a mistake will oneday happen.

In a perfect world an artist would do it for the art itself not the money. If someone lost access to their work they would happily buy another copy, and the artist would refuse it.

When the artist sells their work in a way that's most effective at getting lost (like painting a picture on dry leaves with sulfur covered corners) so that the customer who genuinly likes the artists work would bring money again that's my beef.

 

[RicoADF]

snip

You're really going to use an act of violence in this comparison? And telling people to be the watchful parent to anyone who uses their items is quite hilarious since it ends up with "blame the victim."

That's not blaming a victim. I'm not saying the owner should be liable for the piracy that takes place on their ISP. I'm saying they should be responsible for not securing their router, just a small fine. $50 would be more than enough. They made a choice. They decided not to secure the router. If that decision leads, in part, to illegal activity, why shouldn't they be held responsible? Not for the illegal activity in general, but simply for their conscious act not to make any effort to prevent it. A world where people are no longer held accountable for the decisions they make is not a world I want to live in.

You are punishing the victim. You are saying "hold the person accountable for not securing their router" because someone random person committed a crime. Why not sue universities whose students were file sharing music. Sure, the students were expelled or disciplined, but what does that matter when the university let those criminals online?

I'm not punishing the victim because, and I really can't stress this enough: I'm not punishing them for what someone else did to them! I'm punishing them for their own conscious decision. You may want to live in a world where it is perfectly acceptable for a human being to act like a brain-dead puppet, but I like living in a world where people use god's greatest gift, their own mind. "Your life is yours alone. Rise up and live it." That means you have to accept responsibility for the results of your actions, not just do wtf-ever you want with 0 accountability. I've wasted enough of my life saying the same thing over and over again to wall, so don't expect me to answer another troll's post of: "But you're punishing the victim."

Yes, you are. And you're a spoiled little brat for thinking this is a troll. I can leave the keys in a car if I want. Hell, I can even tell a random stranger he's free to use my car, but if he crashes it he is liable. I cannot claim it via insurance, but you can bet your spoiled ass I can take him to court. You being uptight with your belongings is fine, but punishing them for not sharing your views? Pretty sad in my opinion, but you are free to think that.

I agree, you can't punish someone for not securing their wifi, most people don't even know what it means or how to do it. Just because those of us on this site have said knowledge because it's our interest doesn't make it a required knowledge that everyone is expected to know.
Not to mention the issue is that those people are financially ruined for life with no proof, these corporations need to be put and line and reminded they don't own their viewers.

 

[iblis666]

Hm. That's definitely interesting.

I can see where the judge is coming from, and he definitely has a point there. I'm just a bit concerned that this will make pirates feel safer. But it's not worth suing regular people just to catch criminals, and I'm not sure if there's a better solution.

He kinda has a point, but at the same time, I would say that you are responsible for your ISP. If you choose not to secure your wireless, then you should have to live with the consequences. This is just another way to take away responsibility from individuals.

This is one of the worst arguments I have ever read. How or why should someone be liable for a crime committed that they had no knowledge of and, in many cases, no baseline of knowledge necessary to prevent a misuse of their property? More importantly, a huge number of supposedly secured wireless connections are, in fact, easily exploited so even if someone were to take the approach of securing their device it might be tantamount to closing the front door but leaving the window open and they would never know.

In cases like this the guilt should not rest with people who unknowingly facilitated criminal activity but rather with those who actually committed the crime. This principle has been held in court time and again. When a murder is committed using a Springfield firearm the culpable party is the person who pulled the trigger. Not the company that manufactured the weapon, not the company that manufactured the bullets, not the man that sold the bullets or the store that sold the weapon (assuming the store followed proper protocol).

Hm. That's definitely interesting.

I can see where the judge is coming from, and he definitely has a point there. I'm just a bit concerned that this will make pirates feel safer. But it's not worth suing regular people just to catch criminals, and I'm not sure if there's a better solution.

He kinda has a point, but at the same time, I would say that you are responsible for your ISP. If you choose not to secure your wireless, then you should have to live with the consequences. This is just another way to take away responsibility from individuals.

If someone hot-wires your car and goes all vehicular homicide on everybody, should you be held accountable for that?

Not if they hot-wire it, but we aren't talking about hacking your router here, he cited an unsecured router as part of his main point. That would be more like leaving the keys in it and having someone go all vehicular homicide on everyone. and if that happened, yes I believe the car owner should be held responsible, at least partially. And I didn't mean that the ISP owners should take full blame for the crime, more that they should have their hard-drives searched and if pirated content is found, prosecuted/sued.

Glad the court system doesn't see it this way with automobiles, but in favor of its application to loaded guns.

to clarify, again, I don't think the ISP owner should be responsible for all the activity on their ISP, but they should at least be held partially responsible. What would you say if a parent left a loaded gun within reach of a child and there was an accident? Let's go less extreme, they leave a knife in the kids reach, or a pot handle hanging over the stove so the kid can pull it down on themselves? There has to be some amount of accountability for allowing your possessions to be used in an illegal activity. Not having accountability for these crimes of negligence, or pretty much anything else, while we're at it, is one of the greatest problems with society today.

You're really going to use an act of violence in this comparison? And telling people to be the watchful parent to anyone who uses their items is quite hilarious since it ends up with "blame the victim."

wow im not sure what to say first

um well id like to say that a isp should not be treated in such a manner, they shouldn't be blamed for any content that gets transported through their system since suing them would be like a parent suing the water company for their kid drowning in their pool.

And really a $50 fine for a unsecured network? Now im notorious around my house for having long passwords to keep the uninvited off my wireless net but that hasnt stopped my sisters friends from resetting my wireless so they can use it and not telling me and on top of that my wireless has been hacked a few times. All in all im just glad i havent got anyone beating down my door for anything illegal and you want to throw in a $50 fine on top of that when half the time im unaware of my wireless status since my computer doesnt tell me unless my cable is unplugged.

 

[ionveau]

A US judge not working for the good of corporate greed?

 

[skorpion352]

Now im notorious around my house for having long passwords to keep the uninvited off my wireless net but that hasnt stopped my sisters friends from resetting my wireless so they can use it and not telling me and on top of that my wireless has been hacked a few times.

wouldnt resetting it to factory settings remove some of the settings that allow you to connect to your isp? or are they just turning it off and then on again, inwhich case what the hell router do you have the looses the password everytime it looses power?