Troll Complaint Dismissed; Subscriber Not Necessarily Infringer 189
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The courts are finally starting to get it, that the subscriber to an internet access account which has been used for a copyright infringement is not necessarily the infringer. In AF Holdings v. Rogers, a case in the Southern District of California, the Chief Judge of the Court has granted a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim where the only evidence the plaintiff has against defendant is that defendant appears to have been the subscriber to the internet access account in question. In his 7-page opinion (PDF), Chief Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz noted that 'just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity.'"
Yeah! (Score:2)
On Appeal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This needs to be held up on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, and we can celebrate. Otherwise this is a smart District Court Judge's ruling that is only persuasive in other cases.
That is why something like this will almost never be appealed. The MPAA doesn't want to create any "bad law" for themselves.
And of course the winner can't "appeal" even if he wanted to create the precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
"That is why something like this will almost never be appealed. "
Granted, you did say "almost" never. But a winner can sometimes appeal if they have legitimate grounds to feel the judgment was not fair or in accordance with the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Not guilty, perhaps, but... (Score:2)
Many ISP's terms of service hold the subscriber responsible for any activity coming from the IP addresses that they are leasing to the subscriber, and can in those cases still be held civilly liable (albeit not criminally).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in this case obviously the subscriber was not held to be civilly or criminally liable. If the ISP chooses to suspend or terminate the subscribers account based on the allegations of the 3rd party, then I guess that's their prerogative. However the ISP probably isn't going to have any proof of the infringement other than what the 3rd party claims, and the 3rd party probably isn't going to get involved in a case with further significant evidence other than basic information on a sheet of paper that ma
Re: (Score:3)
From the opinion:
However, the Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant
was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the FAC does not explain what
link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued
Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address 68.8.137.53. (The Court notes that
it is actually unclear whether the IP address is registered to Defendant). As recognized by
many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that
he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity.
Basically the plaintiff needs to subpoena the ISP for logs indicating that the IP was assigned to the defendant at the time of the alleged infringement. The IP alone will not be considered proof. Hopefully this stands on appeal on the basis of common sense.
More evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this really something to cheer about? Rah rah yay evil copyright trolls defeated! But wait... is this really fair?
The judge's ruling states that an IP address isn't sufficient information to bring a claim, and that discovery is not permitted. Doesn't that make it pretty much impossible to file a copyright infringement claim against someone for downloading a file? The only way I can think of to tie an IP address download to an individual would be to look at the hard drive of the computer to determine if the file was ever there.
The judge also points out that the owner of the wireless network is under no legal obligation to protect their wireless network from someone else using it. So it upholds the wireless network claim, although it wasn't used in this decision.
I am no fan of the copyright trolls, but I don't think making it completely impossible to track down copyright infringement cases is fair either.
Last note:
The judge granted the motion on one of three counts brought against the individual. They can refile on the first two counts if they can find a way to identify the individual, not just the IP address.
Re:More evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't that make it pretty much impossible to file a copyright infringement claim against someone for downloading a file?
Oh gosh, we can only hope.
Re: (Score:2)
And why is that good?
The fact that the parent's snarky comment was modded to 4, while I bothered to read the judge's report, and point out the pros and cons of the ruling -- that gets modded up, then down, up, then down. Slashdot needs to grow up.
Slashdot mentality:
Copyright on TV and movies is evil! And games! I can watch or play whatever I want for free! And with no ads!
Copyright on indie games? Or open source applications? That's good however.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, downloading a file hasn't (yet) been a cause for complaint in any of these copyright claims, perhaps you meant sharing a file?
Re: (Score:3)
However, how is it fair to be forced to give up my PC to a 3rd party all based on an IP address. It sucks that it leaves little room for investigating copyright infringement but someone shouldn't have their lives turned upside down, even temporarily, based on just an IP address.
Re: (Score:2)
About license plates... Although it's still rampant with theft of these (to be put on other cars so they can steal gas or commit other crimes), downright fake plates are starting to get big. If you steal someone's plates, they're bound to be missed and reported stolen. If you instead copy the plates from a similar car, you can get away with it for a long time, and would even pass a cursory police check (until you commit crimes with it of course).
You don't even have to mess with cardboard, stencils and paint
Re: (Score:2)
So the real owner gets blamed for the gas theft etc. - until it becomes obvious that there's two almost identical cars with the same license plate.
My thoughts on that: 1. There should be a register of suspected duplicated license plates, similar to stolen cars. You should be able to put yourself on that register, possibly adding what's your way to work. A car should be flagged when it's in the register like a stolen car, except a police officer would know that chances are at least 50% that the car is legit. 2. If person X legitimately owns a license plate, then they should be able to demand to be handed over any car using that license plate.
Re:More evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
It needs to be made more difficult, and there needs to be some burden of proof shifted to the accuser.
So many of these they seem to send the "you've been caught downloading, pay us this much money and this goes away" extortion letters, or they file the John Doe lawsuits to get the subscribers names, and then sue them that way. They just go with presumed guilt, and make it impossible for someone to defend themselves without bankrupting themselves.
It doesn't need to be completely impossible ... but there does need to be some actual evidence beyond "I have your IP address, therefore it was you" stuff they do now. They've been trending too much to the point where they can claim anything with no real evidence, and the courts follow along.
Re: (Score:3)
... but there does need to be some actual evidence beyond "I have your IP address, therefore it was you" stuff they do now. They've been trending too much to the point where they can claim anything with no real evidence, and the courts follow along.
Nonsense: MPAA accuses laser printer [afterdawn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't need to be completely impossible ... but there does need to be some actual evidence beyond "I have your IP address, therefore it was you" stuff they do now.
So then, we are in agreement that this ruling is bad. This ruling says that they must tie it to an individual, but they are not allowed to do any investigation that would help them in doing that.
Judge only required plausible allegation (Score:2)
I have hunted the 7-page decision in vain for the spot where the judge forbade Plaintiff "to do any investigation that would help ... ." The judge merely required Plaintiff to mention some alleged facts that, if proved, would associate Plaintiff with the alleged copyright infringment. According to the decision, Plaintiff merely mentioned an IP number, and di
while forbidding the only means for doing so. (Score:2)
The only way that a Plaintiff could obtain the evidence needed is with a subpoena. The judge dismissed the case before allowing any subpoenas to occur. Therefore the judge forbade the Plantiff from doing any useful investigation.
not forbidding the only means for doing so. (Score:3)
That's not what the decision says. The judge did not dismiss the 2 copyright infringment claims. He did not require evidence. He required before proceeding that Plaintiff reveal information, which Plaintiff claimed to possess already, linking Defendant to the IP number. Plaintiff dropped the suit without revealing that information. Subpoenas are by no mean
Re:while forbidding the only means for doing so. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the judge forbade them from going on a fishing expedition to try to make their case based on nothing other than an IP address.
Lack of evidence isn't a basis to get a subpoena to gather more evidence. It means you lack evidence.
No, the judge correctly identified that they haven't done any useful investigation, and that they need something more substantial to file a lawsuit.
Or do you think that if I loudly accused you of embezzling money you should be immediately arrested and your stuff searched to provide evidence that what I said is true? I suspect you'd demand that I show evidence first. These guys are asking to be provided with evidence for their accusations, but haven't provided enough to support the claim.
The judge hasn't hampered the case of the plaintiff, he's told them they haven't established one with anything they can link to the named individual. It actually puts the burden of proof on them, which is the way it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. They have no reason to go after downloaders anyway.
How about... copyright?
There's no reason that anyone should have their doors busted down just so a copyright infringer can be found.
No one said anything about busting down doors. What should have happened was a motion for discovery be granted before the case was dismissed.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on what? An IP address? If all you have is an IP address, you don't have enough to go through a discovery motion is what the judge is telling them.
I would expect the burden of proof to be much higher than "we have an IP address" before they drag in all of his stuff and do discovery on it.
We know from past news coverage that their way of gathering this evidence cab be suspect [openrightsgroup.org] and not always accurate.
There's
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And it shouldn't be completely impossible for the average Joe or Jane to defend themselves against the legal steamroller, either. This Inquisition has been way, way to unbalanced in favor of the accusers for way too long. Accept extortionate demand or be bankrupted trying to prove your innocence. It isn't fair.
Re: (Score:2)
*too unbalanced. Sorry (OCD).
Re:More evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fairness happens through a strict audit chain of deductive evidence. An IP address is not a way of identifying criminal liability.
1) There is no criminal liability involved here. This is a civil case.
This is a fact, no matter how unfair it may seem. It can identify a person, yes; the account holder. But it does not then follow that the account holder is culpable.
2) yes, I agree. I said as much in my post. You missed the my point entirely.
The problem is that the judge forbids discovery. Apparently no one on Slashdot knows what that means. It means that they are forbidden from obtaining any more evidence or doing any more research. They can't look at the network, or the hard drives, or anything. They can't contact the ISP. Nada. So even if they could prove it was an individual, they are no
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression the discovery in question means the court won't compel the account holder to hand over all of their computers to be forensically investigated, or compel anyone else to do it as part of the legal proceedings.
Not that they can't investigate by going to the site the file was downloaded from, asking "was this downloaded by an account under the name Bob IPAddress" but the site owner is allowed to refuse.
I just thought that the court won't do court orders for fishing trips.
If I had your
I don't see where the judge forbade discovery (Score:2)
I hunted through the judge's decision, and could not find where he forbade discovery. I found that he required some alleged facts actually connecting the defendant to the alleged infringement. He didn't require evidence at this stage, merely a statement of a plausible specific claim
That's not what "no discovery" means (Score:2)
Well, I do know what "discovery" means (Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org]). The judge indicated that Plaintiff had not explained allegations well enough to justify certain types of discovery. By no means did he say "that they are forbidden from obtaining any more evidence or doing any more research." "Discovery" means req
Re: (Score:2)
The only way I can think of to tie an IP address download to an individual would be to look at the hard drive of the computer to determine if the file was ever there.
And how do you tie the user to the computer? Many computers are used by more than one person.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was a shared computer, such as at a library or school, then they would probably need to see who was logged-in at the time it was downloaded. They could also look at the date stamp on the file on the computer, or see whose user directory it was in. But at the moment, the ruling forbids any of that since it forbids discovery.
My complaint with the ruling is that it forbids them from doing the investigation that would help them determine this!
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding me?
These jerks abuse the legal system to conduct extortion. Several prominent trolls are facing serious jail time for their crimes, which are numerous. And here you are worried that they have to have actual proof before trying to ruin somebodys life?!
Re: (Score:2)
But wait... is this really fair?
Are you kidding me?
These jerks abuse the legal system to conduct extortion. Several prominent trolls are facing serious jail time for their crimes, which are numerous. And here you are worried that they have to have actual proof before trying to ruin somebodys life?!
LOL.
Now let's see, do I think it's fair? Hmmmm..........
Uh......., yeah, I do.
Re: (Score:2)
... Doesn't that make it pretty much impossible to file a copyright infringement claim against someone for downloading a file? The only way I can think of to tie an IP address download to an individual would be to look at the hard drive of the computer to determine if the file was ever there...
You may be entirely right, and I simply don't care.
Yes, I have friends and family who depend on their intellectual property to survive - they're artists, and it's a hard slog.
However, I believe "no illegal search and seizure" is still an important principle, and remains a fundamental right, whether or not people believe the Constitution is still enforceable. It's still a document worth fighting for.
There are trolls (noun) and people who troll (verb). To paw through peoples' belongings without a court orde
Re: (Score:2)
However, I believe "no illegal search and seizure" is still an important principle, and remains a fundamental right,
100% agreed! This is very true. But it also has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. There was no illegal search and seizure. There is no copyright troll involved here either. Save your rant for the next RIAA/MPAA story.
The question I posed in this discussion is: why did the judge dismiss a request for legal discovery from a legitimate copyright holder who presented seemingly valid evidence? If this is the standard, how can a copyright holder prove a download was illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the court's job to prove the case on the platiff's behalf. Gaining enough evidence is entirely the plantiffs problem. The jusge decided that knowing an IP address was not sufficient evidence against any one person to justify seizure and search of any one person's computers. That seems right to me.
Surely "probable cause" for a search must mean "more than 50%" by any reading of "probable". Come to court with evidence demonstrating a better than 50% chance that a specific person wronged you, or lea
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the small team of lawyers in this case are often considered the kings of copyright trolling, responsible for pursuing legal action against upwards of one hundred thousand people in just a few years.
Lets assume they've been doing this for 3 years, and work 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. That gives them 374400 minutes of time spent, suing lets say 100k people. That gives us somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.74 minutes of discovery and case-bui
Re: (Score:2)
While simply being the subscriber is no longer (we hope) proof of infringement it would almost certainly be probable cause for a search warrant.
My entire complaint is that the judge denied the search warrant!
This is a civil case. So there is no such thing as a warrant. Instead, it is called a motion for discovery. But the judge denied he motion for discovery when he granted the dismissal. That was my entire complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
While simply being the subscriber is no longer (we hope) proof of infringement it would almost certainly be probable cause for a search warrant.
My entire complaint is that the judge denied the search warrant!
This is a civil case. So there is no such thing as a warrant. Instead, it is called a motion for discovery. But the judge denied he motion for discovery when he granted the dismissal. That was my entire complaint.
From the decision:
It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address 68.8.137.53. (The Court notes that it is actually unclear whether the IP address is registered to Defendant)
It appears that all they had was an IP address, which *may* link up to a subscriber. It's like going into court, saying "we know the guy lives in this town, and he drives a car that has numbers in the license plate". I also like this quote:
“it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function...than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call.”
The judge rightly denied discovery as the plaintiff didn't have anything outside of "we think it came from there" while pointing in a general direction. If the bar was set so low for discovery to be granted, one could imagine how often it would be abused
Re: (Score:2)
In your car analogy if a car scrapes across mine when it is parked in the road, should I have the right to demand the licencing authority give me the name and address of the registered owner? No, I have to hand it to the police, who will do fuck all about it.
Not yet (Score:2)
Re:Not yet (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, after this ruling, the plaintiff withdrew the entire case. Probably hoping to find a less intelligent judge somewhere else.
I suspect so. A burglar will always prefer the house with the poorest security.
This is big (Score:5, Informative)
Ever since I first got involved in fighting the RIAA's litigation campaign, and blogging about it, in 2005 [that's almost 8 years ago] I've been arguing that it is not a sufficient basis to bring a lawsuit against someone that an internet access account for which he or she pays the bill was used by someone for a copyright infringement. Even though I, and lots of other lawyers, and lots of other techies, and lots of other people from all walks of life knew this, I have never -- until this ruling -- seen a JUDGE dismiss a complaint because of this.
If those of you who are saying this is "not a big deal" or "was expected" know of any prior decisions like this, please show them to me. Otherwise, STFU about it not being big. After about 10 years and hundreds of thousands of frivolous lawsuits, finally a judge has pointed out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.
It is one of the most newsworthy copyright posts I have ever seen on Slashdot.
Re:This is big (Score:4, Interesting)
This ruling is not just huge - if upheld all the way, this could be the death knell for any hope of enforcing copyrights where it comes to individual users/distributors as long as the internet or structures like it (a potentially shared resource as the only identifying element) is involved.
This is basically me, downloading all of the movies currently on offer on TPB, putting them on a server, and seeding them for as long as that system will last, sharing these movies with hundreds of thousands of people during the course of its operation, with there being nothing for the copyright holders to even start forming litigation around short of a John Doe; which doesn't get them very far if a judge is just going to say "who is John Doe?" and the answer is "we don't know, that's why it's a John Doe."
They can write to my ISP, and even my ISP would have to concede that while the complaining party may very well have an IP address and a timestamp, and my ISP may very know which account that is assigned to, due to the fact that even my ISP doesn't know who - in terms of a legal entity - actually used the account.
At worst, my ISP has a clause saying that the account may be closed if they have a reasonable suspicion that I am indeed performing the above - but they'll likely still try to shy away from doing so.
The question is, how is this going to be countered? If there's one thing we've learned over time it's that the copyright holders will not just let the inevitable come easy.
Will laws be constructed, or (re)interpreted, such that the account holder can be held legally accountable for that which is done through the account? Will only authorized modems be allowed on ISP networks with users wishing to use these modems required to use a token that identifies the person per-packet up to the ISP and make them legally responsible to take great care that this token remains only with them? If this, will lobby groups (and I'm not just thinking of 'big content' here) then push to have this per-packet identification be sent out across all of the internet so that infringement of all sorts can be dealt with directly?
Yes, this is a victory on many levels for the great majority of internet users (albeit just a little more for 'pirates' who stand to benefit the most). Just don't be surprised if it's going to get worse long before it's going to get better.
That said, there's that 'if' at the top of my comment. That's a big 'if'.
On a side note: Good to see you again, NYCL - it's been a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Good to see you again, NYCL - it's been a while.
Nice to see you, too, Quasi :)
Re: (Score:2)
Ray, given that they withdrew the case, does that still make this ruling precedent? And on what level of precedent? Federal, or just this circuit?
Re: (Score:3)
Ray, given that they withdrew the case, does that still make this ruling precedent? And on what level of precedent?
It's not binding precedent, but IMHO it represents strong persuasive authority.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey NYCL,
So I got beat up here at Slashdot for suggesting that the judge should have granted discovery. Can you clarify here for me? Based on my reading of the ruling, the judge said that they could refile if they had additional evidence pointing to an individual. But it also seemed to deny any possibility for discovery. How could they tie it to an individual if they can't file for discovery? They could have looked at network logs, or hard drive contents, etc. and possibly proved who downloaded the fil
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
In the federal rules there's no procedure for bringing a lawsuit against someone to give yourself the ability to conduct an "Investigation" with all the coercive powers of a court at your disposal.
This judge just called the plaintiff's lawyer's bluff, which is why the lawyer put his tail between his legs and ran.
Re: (Score:2)
So where does discovery come in?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he's merely suggesting that it ought to be impossible, given the rules that already exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is precisely what I am trying to understand. I thought you could go to the judge, file for discovery, then get the information you need to prove your case.
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling is huge... It is one of the most newsworthy copyright posts I have ever seen on Slashdot.
[X] Strongly Agree. It's been a long time coming, hasn't it? Let's hope the long summer of love for the RIAA is over. Too many people screwed over, too many peoples' lives turned upside down by this latest Inquisition. File-sharers under every bed. Let it stop now.
"Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyer's Guild...Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator; you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling is huge.
I agree. It is so important that we should fully expect that MAFIAA lobbyists to now focus their efforts on getting a bill passed to make the owner of the account legally culpable. They even have a case to point at and say, "this is a loophole in the currebnt law, just look how this court ruled."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a lot of change that I can see.
With IPv6, the smallest subnet that will be assigned is a /64 - meaning 64 bits of host addresses are possible within that subnet. Originally it was envisioned that those 64 bits would be the MAC address of the host, but people had a wee bit of a problem with that privacy-wise, for just this reason - exposing the MAC address of a system on the public Internet.
So, many, if not most, hosts nowadays choose a random value for their host ID, do the IPv6 equivalent of a gratuit
Re: (Score:2)
Am I also to believe that progress is being made with the improper joinder issue as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Big Grats on this Ray! I know you've been preaching this for a long time. Good to see it finally getting some traction with the Courts. Am I also to believe that progress is being made with the improper joinder issue as well?
Absolutely, just today I posted another of many decisions [blogspot.com] granting severance and dismissal as to all John Does other than Doe 1:
Re: (Score:2)
Ever since I first got involved in fighting the RIAA's litigation campaign, and blogging about it, in 2005 [that's almost 8 years ago] I've been arguing that it is not a sufficient basis to bring a lawsuit against someone that an internet access account for which he or she pays the bill was used by someone for a copyright infringement.
Just a few days ago, there was this discussion here on Slashdot about some guy who can't manage to keep a leech of his network:
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/13/02/20/2058235/ask-slashdot-dealing-with-an-advanced-wi-fi-leech [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't much to say, other than from one New York lawyer to another, BIG UPS. Keep doing your thing, Ray. You'll wear the bastards down eventually!
This has been my argument for 10 years... (Score:2)
IP Address, Car... (Score:5, Insightful)
'just because a CAR is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that CAR is used to commit infringing activity.'
A whole bunch of 'speed camera law' is in exact opposition to this ruling.
I think that the ruling is positive and constructive - but I also think that it will be overruled at a higher level for the exact same reasons that the speed camera law is in place.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly why many of us oppose those kind of laws. A significant number of places that use those cameras require an identifiable picture of the driver. Those that don't IMO are a severe constitutional breach that needs to be challenged up to the supreme court of necessary. The problem is that the fines (and lack of a hit to your drivers license or insurance) of make it more worthwhile to simply pay the fine. It's going to take some wealthy person with the will to spend 10-100X more than the fine to fi
Sadly not the case in NZ (Score:2)
and if that's not bad enough, if you're accused of downloading a file, a correctly filled in complaint form from the IP holder is deemed sufficient proof the offense occurred (3 strikes btw)... i.e, if someone accused YOU of downloading Justin Bieber - Baby.mp3 yesterday, could you prove you
Re: (Score:2)
if someone accused YOU of downloading Justin Bieber - Baby.mp3 yesterday, could you prove you didn't?
No, but I could plead insanity.
The no negligence ruling may be more important (Score:2)
Was this ruling because the content was porn? (Score:2)
While this is a great ruling, I've noticed a recent pattern: most of the cases where judges have come down hard on copyright trolls do not involve material from major studios. They involve pornography, often gay pornography. There are quite a few of these cases chronicled on TorrentFreak. I wonder to what extent the judges are letting their disgust of the underlying material come through in their rulings. Would they be making the same rulings if these people were accused of downloading mainstream music or f
Re: (Score:2)
While this is a great ruling, I've noticed a recent pattern: most of the cases where judges have come down hard on copyright trolls do not involve material from major studios. They involve pornography, often gay pornography. There are quite a few of these cases chronicled on TorrentFreak. I wonder to what extent the judges are letting their disgust of the underlying material come through in their rulings. Would they be making the same rulings if these people were accused of downloading mainstream music or films?
Good question. I don't know the answer. It certainly seems that the overt sleeziness of the current crop of plaintiffs -- as opposed to the camouflaged sleeziness of the RIAA plaintiffs -- has alerted the judges to the fact that there's something wrong here.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a particularly big deal. The "IP address isn't a person" argument has been brought up in cases before, but it's just never mattered. In previous cases I've read about, there was other evidence, such as the infringing material being found on the defendant's computer, or usernames related to the person's real name.
Similarly, a gun registration doesn't mean the owner's automatically responsible for any crimes, but it does certainly put the owner under suspicion, and may be probable cause for a more
Huh! (Score:2)
This isn't a particularly big deal. The "IP address isn't a person" argument has been brought up in cases before, but it's just never mattered
It would be absurd to even insinuate that an IP is a person. From what I know, an IP doesn't have "life" or a "state of mind," so how can it be a person?
An IP in this context could be used to narrow down a set of suspects. In other words, it's just a set of numbers, right?
Re: (Score:2)
But.. IPs are corporations, and corporations are people, so.....
Re: (Score:2)
From what I know, an IP doesn't have "life"
Well, yeah, but neither do most Slashdotters, so what's your point? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what difference does it make though ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
easy: IP addresses are mentioned neither in the constitution nor in the bible, which clearly mean the state can do whatever with them.
Re: (Score:2)
The gun analogy doesn't fly... An IP can be abused or shared without actual knowledge. This is much harder with a physical item like a gun.
Remember - not only can members of a household share an IP and not only can wireless access be hacked/abused to allow unknown external parties to participate in the sharing - external parties also hook into the network either by ethernet cable or through a rogue access point hidden somewhere. This has actually happened in real life.
The judge got it right: You cannot use
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If these cases involved guns.... (Score:4, Interesting)
If he is significantly rural, he might not be running a wifi password at all. My brother's wifi is barely accessible outside of his house, let alone the .75 miles between his house and the nearest public road, so he does not bother with it.
In comparison, I keep a strong wifi password, as I just found out that my wifi is line-of-sight accessible from the picnic pavilion in the park across the street (literally line of sight, the router is in the living room with only a few panes of glass between).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If these cases involved guns.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that would be a very interesting configuration in court.
The **AA would not be able to prove what wifi was used to commit the offence, and it makes it even more plausible that you hand out the guest account to anyone including neighbours who perhaps had net issues once.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My state has no gun registration.... on purpose. Private person->person sales are just peachy and require no registration. Purchases at a gun store are registered so the gun shop owner can keep his FFL but after initial purchase, guns can be sold time and time again and end up in some pawn shop somewhere. And ya know what? I like it that way.
Re: (Score:3)
How many gun owners let other people use their guns?
Nancy Lanza did.
Moral of the story: secure your weapons better than your Wifi.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is valid. Wifi can hacked into and used without permission to download copyright protected content (you can't pirate content as Piracy involves ships and water. No matter how much mainstream media wants you to believe you can) That is what amusing me about your point. Guns can indeed allow engagement highly illegal activities like murder, theft, kidnapping and rape. Wifi can allow pedophilia, ID theft, collaspe essential servers that control electricity, water, sewage etc which can lead to death
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It can if it is used to hack a SCADA system. Granted, it would be neigh impossible to target a specific person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wanna bet? VOIP + SWATting = win.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just not hitting the clerk in the head with the wireless hard enough.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm almost positive the internet's been blamed for killing people before.
Re:If these cases involved guns.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Want a simple correlation? If you force gun owners to register their purchase, and then hold the registered owner responsible for any crimes committed with that gun. Bring that up in a trial and then get your popcorn as your local politician tries to explain his loyalty to both sides.
A single IP can be used by many people at the same time. Some of them can even be out of sight of each other. This doesn't hold true for guns.
With Carrier-grade NAT, a whole lot of people may be using the same IP address at the same time, and they wouldn't even have to be in the same state...
Re: (Score:2)
A single IP can be used by many people at the same time. Some of them can even be out of sight of each other. This doesn't hold true for guns.
That's not quite as true as it sounds...
"For years the city did ballistic testing on all guns that passed through their control and on all bullets recovered, however, they never did much with those records. On September 20 of 2000, the new commander of the ballistics unit reported on a statistical comparisons made possible by new computer technology. What they found, he said, indicates that the common fear about a new influx of guns flooding streets is deeply misguided. What their data base revealed was tha [aware.org]
Just a matter of degree. (Score:2)
Two people can't use the same IP address at the same time either - your packets are interleaved.
It just so happens that your packets are interleaved on the microsecond scale while gun use is interleaved on the order of hours/days/weeks.
Re: (Score:3)
If I knowingly loan one of my guns or vehicles to someone I know, or should know, to be a problem, I would expect to be held liable to some degree. If, however, someone steals one of these things or otherwise accesses them without my permission, the liability is theirs.
And what if you loan out your hunting rifle to your friend to go hunting, and they end up murdering somebody with it, should you be held responsible? What if you loan your car to your friend to go grocery shopping and they end up running a red light and killing somebody, should you be liable? I think only if you have a reasonable belief that the individual might use it for that purpose. How about if somebody steals your car or gun and does the same?
One problem with WiFi is that you don't necessarily know
Re: (Score:2)
That's what people have been saying for over two decades... Glad common sense has won out on this one.
Yup. And yup.