Bittorrent Judge Rules: You Are Not Your IP Address

[Korskarn]

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.

But if a kid drowns in your pool, you are liable even if you didn't participate in the action of drowning - the precedent is certainly there that if your property was used in the perpetration of a crime then you can be prosecuted. It may be that for "John Doe" suits when they can't prove consent they can only go for a lesser amount (i.e. "negligence"), but it doesn't rule them out entirely.

 

[Asehujiko]

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.

They're "fighting pirates", so speaking out against them makes you a pirate and therefor your opinion is invalid.

 

[skorpion352]

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.

They're "fighting pirates", so speaking out against them makes you a pirate and therefor your opinion is invalid.

you'll change your tune pretty damn quick when someone spoofs thier ip and your parents or grand parents are bankrupted as a result of a stupid lawsuit whose only purpose is to extort money from people whether they did anything wrong or not

EDIT: im not saying they shouldnt be able to sue to protect thier rights, im saying they should actually have to prove someone has done something wrong other than "this ip did it"

also, even the pirates have a right to have a valid opinion and whether they did anything wrong or not they have the right to express it, and defend themselves fairly in court.

personally i think your opinion is invalid because you acted like an ass with that post, but you are still entiled to have it and express it, thats one of the great things abotu the first amendment, freedom of speech aplies to everyone

 

[ionveau]

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.

You are right, The U.S law dose state that, Canadian law states i may make as many backups as i wish so i will do that.

And i believe other country's have no copy write laws at all making it A OK for them too download from torrents,we cannot pick witch laws to fallow, thats why we elect the people to set the laws, some country's elect better then others.

 

[Asehujiko]

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.

They're "fighting pirates", so speaking out against them makes you a pirate and therefor your opinion is invalid.

you'll change your tune pretty damn quick when someone spoofs thier ip and your parents or grand parents are bankrupted as a result of a stupid lawsuit whose only purpose is to extort money from people whether they did anything wrong or not

EDIT: im not saying they shouldnt be able to sue to protect thier rights, im saying they should actually have to prove someone has done something wrong other than "this ip did it"

also, even the pirates have a right to have a valid opinion and whether they did anything wrong or not they have the right to express it, and defend themselves fairly in court.

personally i think your opinion is invalid because you acted like an ass with that post, but you are still entiled to have it and express it, thats one of the great things abotu the first amendment, freedom of speech aplies to everyone

Calm down, he asked why people let them get away with this for so long and the attitude here(and in other places) that everything that (supposedly) hurts something "evil" is automatically "good" (I call this the Eastern Front problem) is definitely an important factor, as is the "If you disagree with me you must be a criminal and thus, wrong" holier then thou BS that's been clogging up the whole file sharing debate.

 

[skorpion352]

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.

They're "fighting pirates", so speaking out against them makes you a pirate and therefor your opinion is invalid.

you'll change your tune pretty damn quick when someone spoofs thier ip and your parents or grand parents are bankrupted as a result of a stupid lawsuit whose only purpose is to extort money from people whether they did anything wrong or not

EDIT: im not saying they shouldnt be able to sue to protect thier rights, im saying they should actually have to prove someone has done something wrong other than "this ip did it"

also, even the pirates have a right to have a valid opinion and whether they did anything wrong or not they have the right to express it, and defend themselves fairly in court.

personally i think your opinion is invalid because you acted like an ass with that post, but you are still entiled to have it and express it, thats one of the great things abotu the first amendment, freedom of speech aplies to everyone

Calm down, he asked why people let them get away with this for so long and the attitude here(and in other places) that everything that (supposedly) hurts something "evil" is automatically "good" (I call this the Eastern Front problem) is definitely an important factor, as is the "If you disagree with me you must be a criminal and thus, wrong" holier then thou BS that's been clogging up the whole file sharing debate.

my apologies, i must have misread his post as being hostile probably due to the last part. its pretty late here and from some reason im more tired than usual. i probably shouldnt be reading forums when im this tired but i cant sleep and have nothign else to do

 

[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.

They're "fighting pirates", so speaking out against them makes you a pirate and therefor your opinion is invalid.

Ha ha, definitely, such logic is infallible. But wait, you seem to know rather a lot - maybe YOU'RE a pirate! :O Stay back, you're all pirates!! Someone save my bits and bytes, they're going to be copied by those meanie IPs!

 

[spartan231490]

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.

I agree. I clarified that in one of my posts on this thread, that I thought it should be like a $50, maybe $100 fine if you don't secure your router and it's used by others for illegal activities. Maybe charge them with something criminal negligence if their router is used for something really bad, like planning a terrorist attack or something(how this would come about is beyond me) but that seems like taking it too far to me as I believe criminal negligence is a felony and I was thinking this should stay in the realm of misdemeanors.

 

[Lokithrsourcerer]

defiantly agree with this my grandma got a letter from a law firm demanding payment for downloading pirated porn she doesnt even know how to send an email i went round and found 23 people logged as using her wireless connection

 

[AdumbroDeus]

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.

But not being tech savy is not a criminal offense. Period.


Furthermore it's not something that's inherently dangerous so there's no legal precedent that you are required to secure it to avoid legal liability, and with a precedent like that what is "reasonable" as far as securing it?


There's too much grey area as far as what would legally be considered secured for something that is inherently dangerous for it to be right to require to be tech-saavy.

 

[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.

You are right, The U.S law dose state that, Canadian law states i may make as many backups as i wish so i will do that.

And i believe other country's have no copy write laws at all making it A OK for them too download from torrents,we cannot pick witch laws to fallow, thats why we elect the people to set the laws, some country's elect better then others.

Copying material you already own for backup purposes isn't being a pirate, it's being smart.

 

[linwolf]

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.

You are right, The U.S law dose state that, Canadian law states i may make as many backups as i wish so i will do that.

And i believe other country's have no copy write laws at all making it A OK for them too download from torrents,we cannot pick witch laws to fallow, thats why we elect the people to set the laws, some country's elect better then others.

Copying material you already own for backup purposes isn't being a pirate, it's being smart.

Trouble is that some countries are starting to make laws that makes it illegal. If a game have DRM on it that makes it hard to make backups, if you live in the USA you are no longer allow to make a backup.

 

[DTWolfwood]

"the order that may end all future John Doe lawsuits."

o please god let it be true!

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

dammit... i got distracted at "Canadian porn company". now i can't stop thinking about cute nekkid Canuck girls in toques...

OT: very nice ruling. let's hope that it's upheld elsewhere.

 

[rokkolpo]

Before I go reading the entirety of the article...
What is ''subpoenaed''?

Just what.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

Before I go reading the entirety of the article...
What is ''subpoenaed''?

Just what.

being called before the court. from the latin "under penalty".

 

[Ulvai]

Strong arguments on both sides...

The anonymity of the internet is a blessing and a curse huh. Wish there was some way to effectively track the sites and pirates so they could get knocked with the fines without infringing on people.

Yeah, right. The systems to track pirates would always be technologically 1 step behind pirates. Start tracking torrents - get darknets, encrypted P2P with no central servers... Take that away - something new will come up.

 

[rokkolpo]

Before I go reading the entirety of the article...
What is ''subpoenaed''?

Just what.

being called before the court. from the latin "under penalty".

Alright thanks.

(weirdest word ever)

 

[McMullen]

Fantastic. Anytime a judge or lawmaker makes a decision that actually acknowledges the real nature of the technology they are dealing with, that is a small victory against the ambient suckage of the universe.