Judge Dismisses Movie Piracy Case, IP-Address Doesn't Prove Anything (torrentfreak.com) 164
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: In what's believed to be a first of its kind ruling, a federal court in Oregon has dismissed a direct infringement complaint against an alleged movie pirate from the outset. According to the judge, linking an IP-address to a pirated download is not enough to prove direct copyright infringement. In the Oregon District Court, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman recently recommended dismissal of a complaint filed by the makers of the Adam Sandler movie The Cobbler. According to the Judge both claims of direct and indirect infringement were not sufficient for the case to continue. What's unique in this case, is that the direct infringement claims were dismissed sua sponte, which hasn't happened before. To prove direct infringement copyright holders merely have to make it "plausible" that a defendant, Thomas Gonzales in this case, is indeed the copyright infringer. This is traditionally done by pointing out that the IP-address is directly linked to the defendant's Internet connection, for example. However, according to Judge Beckerman this is not enough. In response to community backlash, Oculus has decided to change its DRM policy (again) to allow HTC Vive games to play on the Oculus Rift virtual-reality system.
Oculus (Score:3, Insightful)
How the fuck is old news regarding DRM on VR systems related to this case?
Re: (Score:3)
How the fuck is old news regarding DRM on VR systems related to this case?
Yeah I didn't get the tie in at all either. Slashvertisement?
Re: (Score:2)
Beating the same horse over and over and over. Cause it's fun, dun' it before. Easier than being original.
Re: Oculus (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Beating the same horse over and over and over.
Please note that beating your horse voids its warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is Slashdot. But these complete non-sequitur concluding sentences seem to be somewhat new. Or maybe they're just happening more frequently (and with a higher level of disconnectedness from the main summary).
Re: (Score:2)
It's also incorrect old news, as both the link and article are backwards: it's actually easing the restriction of Oculus Rift games on Vive.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that they make these additional statements by some algorithm that is completely stupid. The link here seems to be copyright.
Sanity vs. Copyright. (Score:5, Funny)
The case was likely dismissed on grounds of questionable sanity.
No one in their right mind would even bother stealing that movie.
Re: (Score:2)
The case was likely dismissed on grounds of questionable sanity.
No one in their right mind would even bother stealing that movie.
Obviously a case of "Diminished Responsibility"
Re: (Score:2)
I would say this would be grounds for a fair use claim.
Surely no one would watch more than say 30 seconds of that film before deleting it and opting to watch paint dry instead.
Re: (Score:2)
It does, for the watcher's brain-cells...
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming the downloader actually watched the movie, even just sentencing to 'time served' might amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
Plausible? (Score:3)
As much as I disagree with the copyright system across the globe, and would be a hypocrite to say downloading is wrong.
Surely the judge has got it wrong here? If this sentence is true "To prove direct infringement copyright holders merely have to make it "plausible" that a defendant, Thomas Gonzales in this case, is indeed the copyright infringer." then the IP address linked to the defendant's contract with the ISP is surely "plausible"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Plausible? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is exactly why I repeated 'plausible' three times as my point is, lets bring out the car analogy, if Mr Johnson owns a car and that car is caught speeding by a speed camera. It is PLAUSIBLE that Mr Johnson was speeding as it is his car. It's entirely plausible. It doesn't mean it wasn't Mrs Johnson driving or Mr Johnson's kid. It may have been stolen and it wasn't anyone in the Johnson family. But it is definitely PLAUSIBLE that it was Mr Johnson.
Exactly the same applies in this case, if the only requirement is whether it is plausible, then surely the IP belongs to Gonzales' account with the ISP so it is plausible it was him.
Three users = no preponderance (Score:3)
Even if it is plausible, plausibility isn't the standard for a tort conviction. The standard is "preponderance" [wikipedia.org], or "balance of probabilities", or "more likely than not", or 51 percent probability. If your access point has three or more users, the probability drops to one-third or less unless the copyright owner can show more evidence that you performed the infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point, but maybe the judge thought 'plausible, even though in the law as written, is not a high enough bar for conviction'.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the first thing to note is that I doubt laws uses "quotes" to define a term like "plausible". So it is suspect that what was in the summary is not accurate/official/legal (surprise, surprise).
Given that, I'll try and make an car analogy work.
* Let's start with; yes, one person is the registered owner of the car so it is possible that that person is responsible for any infraction involving the car.
* It is also possible that anyone else in the house could have taken the keys and borrowed the car witho
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fully in agreement that an IP address proves nothing in a case like this. I merely wanted to question the (we've all agreed quite clearly wrong) summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would require a law saying that the owner of a connection is liable for all copyright violations on his or her connection. Unless you run a service that exists primarily to facilitate copyright violation, and an internet connection doesn't qualify, you aren't liable for copyright violations just because they're from your connection. (Note: IANAL. Of course, this being Slashdot, ramblings from pseudonymous unqualified people substitute nicely for actual legal advice.)
Re:Plausible? (Score:5, Informative)
In the continuation of the article it says:
"That an outsider could be the pirate is not unlikely. The defendant operates an adult foster care home where several people had access to the Internet. The filmmakers were aware of this and during a hearing their counsel admitted that any guest could have downloaded the film."
So indeed the judges ruling is reasonable...
Re: (Score:2)
This could apply to pretty much any internet connection. Most residential ones are shared with multiple users, if not just open due to poor configuration or one of the ISP deals where customers can use your wifi and in exchange you can use theirs.
Since, as the bill payer, you are under no obligation to investigate on behalf of the rights holder, there isn't much they can do to identify who downloaded the file, if indeed it was even downloaded. Most trackers include a few random IP addresses and often these
Re: (Score:3)
In the continuation of the article it says:
"That an outsider could be the pirate is not unlikely. The defendant operates an adult foster care home where several people had access to the Internet. The filmmakers were aware of this and during a hearing their counsel admitted that any guest could have downloaded the film."
So indeed the judges ruling is reasonable...
It's almost as if that was a relevant fact that should have been included in the summary of the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! I love cases like that. A friend of mine had to go to court once because he was working the front door at a crowded bar and a police officer issued him a ticket (in his name) because the bar was too noisy. In court, my friend defended himself:
Friend: During the incident, do you remember me saying that I was just there to check IDs, that I had no control over the volume of the music, and that you would need to enter the bar and speak to someone else who could address it?
Cop: Yes, I remember that.
City Att
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if that was a relevant fact that should have been included in the summary of the article.
Well - that's where Slashdot has gone downhill.
Same with the article about the gear shifter. What the summary should've mentioned is:
Though shift patterns â" things like P-R-N-D â" are standardized, the designs of shifters themselves are not. FCA's shifter was unusual in that it resembles a classic floor-mounted gear selector that can be physically moved between different transmission modes, but FCA's lever always returns to the center position, making it impossible to tell by feel alone which gear you're in.
It always returns to the center position. Why wasn't this mentioned in the summary?
Same as with this article's summary: why did it not mention that the filmmakers admitted that anybody in that foster care home could've downloaded stuff. And therefor this ruling makes sense.
Slashdot editors: do it right or don't do it all.
Judge has it right (Score:2)
You are not correct on two fronts. IP spoofing is a common tactic for hiding one's identity on the Internet. If an IP showing in logs was enough to prove guilt, how about we give your IP to a Botnet and let them DOS something, like the Pentagon, masquerading with that IP. Would you be okay with the IP in logs being held as the gospel truth when you are facing multiple felonies and a long prison sentence?
The second front you are incorrect on, is that in Western justice systems one is assumed innocent. N
Re: (Score:2)
You are not correct on two fronts. IP spoofing is a common tactic for hiding one's identity on the Internet. If an IP showing in logs was enough to prove guilt, how about we give your IP to a Botnet and let them DOS something, like the Pentagon, masquerading with that IP.
Unless you're also hacking some routing tables, IP spoofing doesn't work for downloading stuff over BitTorrent. It would work for something like a DDoS, where you don't actually care about getting any data back, but not for downloading stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on the ISP setup and/or the home network setup, that may not be as hard as you think. Add in an open (ish) WiFi and it becomes entirely likely the downloader was a neighbor or someone borrowing WiFi from the street corner or parking lot.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you are saying I'm wrong, I was questioning the summary. It seems to be the summary that was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Judge has it right (Score:2)
But you seem to have completely misread my question. I was making a point out of the summary stating it only had to be 'plausible'
I know full well about how an IP isn't concrete proof
Re: (Score:2)
Apology for mixing up posts. I did state you were wrong, and I expressed exactly how you were wrong. If you wish to counter my claims and demonstrate that IP spoofing does not work, and that common law principles of presumed innocent until proven guilty are wrong please do so with facts.
My position is based in facts I know, and can be swayed with additional facts.
When you present a question and provide your own answer, the question becomes rhetorical in nature and is no longer a valid question.
Re: Judge has it right (Score:2)
Wow, very defensive. You aren't understanding this what so ever. So let's leave it at that :)
Re: (Score:2)
For criminal proceedings, the accused is legally innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For civil proceedings, the defendant can lose due to a preponderance of evidence, which is pretty much on a "more likely than not" basis.
SubjectisSubject (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone is bad at multitasking. One article at a time mates.
Re: (Score:2)
Nono, This is the Wookie defense in action. You are in court for piracy, have your lawyer bring up the fact that Oculus has taken away their DRM. As this makes absolutely NO sense, they must acquit the defendant!
Re: SubjectisSubject (Score:3)
Reason for the dismissal (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, that makes sense then.
Although it does mean that this sentence in the summary is simply wrong - "To prove direct infringement copyright holders merely have to make it "plausible" that a defendant, Thomas Gonzales in this case, is indeed the copyright infringer."
If it was true, it doesn't matter how many other peoples shared the internet connection.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Oculus (Score:2)
--BeauHD.
-1. Offtopic.
Why doesn't an IP address prove something? (Score:4, Interesting)
If a custom painted car used in a bank robbery is caught on film, and later found in your garage with matching plates, and it is liscened to you and driven by you on a daily basis, it seems like this might be relevant. Yes it is possible someone could have stolen it for a while and returned it without any signs it was stolen. But it seems like it's still pretty good evidence to build a case on.
Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but if you had keys to the car, and so did your brother, and your sister, and your dad, and the guy down the street, it becomes less likely that YOU were the driver of the car during the bank robbery.
What's going on with this case is similar. The judge is saying that the IP address doesn't prove who was "driving".
Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a Network Engineer and I have worked in the I.T. field for 30 years. I specialize in computer forensics.
This is completely correct. In this age of cyber attacks, malware, ransomware, viruses, and hacks, it is very common for somebody else to seize control over a computer remotely and make your computer do things without your noticing it or leaving any trace.
Anybody ever accused of such a crime, should remember that a vast majority of cases depends on an admission of guilt. a VAST majority. In fact, the only ones that don't are the few cases with absolute no doubt, rock solid evidence of who was "driving", and what they were doing, and that only happens if a person is completely stupid.
FYI, a VPN connection, provides proof that YOU were the person driving since it's password protected and paid for with your credit card.
Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a Network Engineer and I have worked in the I.T. field for 30 years. I specialize in computer forensics.
This is completely correct. In this age of cyber attacks, malware, ransomware, viruses, and hacks, it is very common for somebody else to seize control over a computer remotely and make your computer do things without your noticing it or leaving any trace.
Anybody ever accused of such a crime, should remember that a vast majority of cases depends on an admission of guilt. a VAST majority. In fact, the only ones that don't are the few cases with absolute no doubt, rock solid evidence of who was "driving", and what they were doing, and that only happens if a person is completely stupid.
FYI, a VPN connection, provides proof that YOU were the person driving since it's password protected and paid for with your credit card.
Really, a VPN connection can only be established by you?
Yet if someone else already has access and control of your pc, likely with a keylogger on the pc, what stops them from using the VPN as you? Nothing, that is what.
Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, a VPN connection, provides proof that YOU were the person driving since it's password protected and paid for with your credit card.
Really, a VPN connection can only be established by you?
Yet if someone else already has access and control of your pc, likely with a keylogger on the pc, what stops them from using the VPN as you? Nothing, that is what.
... and what if your computer/router is setup to automatically create the VPN connection... My 5 year old could be on that VPN.
It would definitely be harder to show that you were innocent if the VPN service is in your name. While not impossible for someone to hijack a VPN connection, My personal opinion is that such an argument without proof would be an uphill battle in court. Note: I am not a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
It would definitely be harder to show that you were innocent if the VPN service is in your name. While not impossible for someone to hijack a VPN connection, My personal opinion is that such an argument without proof would be an uphill battle in court. Note: I am not a lawyer.
So, having been to court many times, both with a lawyer and acting Pro Se, I can assure you that (in civil court at least), it HAS to be proven that it was actually YOU who did it. A log by itself is not enough.
What I mean by this, a cell phone in my name, could be left on the counter and a child could have used it to make a phone call. While that is my phone and in my name, no one witnessed the call, and the log file cannot attest to it having been me make that call
Not sure about criminal court, but the
Re: (Score:2)
Really, a VPN connection can only be established by you?
Steps for connecting my VPN:
Alternatively, connect to a Wi-Fi network that isn't my house, office, or cell phone. That also triggers it.
Re: (Score:2)
What about hacked routers / router level VPN's / open wifi / default wifi passwords / the Comcast public wifi hot spot / etc?
The driver did it. VPNs mean nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have to post your resumé to make a point on /. then you've already lost.
OB Resumé thing: Yeah, I have that same experience, so we probably know of each other. Say hi to Nate or Dave for me.
When stopped for a moving violation in a car, the DRIVER is responsible. The OWNER doesn't get the citation; the DRIVER DOES.
VPNs don't necessarily require a user-entered password, can be bought and used automatically
without the user "entering authentication" (other than installing the initial file containing credentials),
include site-to-site VPNs that don't have per-user credentials, but most importantly to THIS discussion
PROVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because:
The DRIVER of the Internet connection is the USER. The OWNER of the IP address is the ISP (or their ISP etc.) and they
lease it out to the CUSTOMER. The failure of these lawsuits is to link the CUSTOMER (car owner in the analogy) to the
USER (car driver in the analogy).
Having VPNs doesn't change the fundamental aspect that copyright trolls want the court to overlook:
The USER of the IP address is whom they want, but the OWNER of the IP address is whom they go after.
The more courts that wake up to this, the better.
E
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is highly suspect that the state can claim you've committed wrongdoing and seek punishment far in excess of actual damages ($0 for a redlight violation and perhaps a $1 in the case of a toll) to punish you and simply choose to call the off
Re: (Score:2)
If I ever find mys
Re: (Score:2)
But make no mistake the state IS bypassing due process by declaring a lower burden of proof and denying your constitutional rights as someone accused of a crime and for most offenses, including toll violations you can ultimately
Re: (Score:2)
Parking violations are usually just sent to the vehicle owner, without further ado. (You can, of course, contest them, but it's usually preferable to just pay them.) In my state, that's perfectly legal. Moving violations have consequences beyond fines, and the driver must be identified. Red-light cameras ran into legal trouble here, since they didn't positively identify the driver and were trying to ticket for moving violations.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you get a VPN service that doesn't keep logs past 48 hours.... DUH.
Re: (Score:2)
"FYI, a VPN connection, provides proof that YOU were the person driving since it's password protected and paid for with your credit card."
I beg to differ. I pay my VPN with my credit-card just as I pay my ISP with my credit-card.
There is absolutely no difference besides the IP. My wife, kids, friends, the friends of the kids, the neighbors, everybody makes their connection via the VPN, just as any fictional bad boys overtaking my computer.
The router just uses the VPN, no matter who connects.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course your vpn account was hacked and your password compromised. Malware infecting your browser will give access to your vpn as well as your laptop/desktop along with literally any and every other activity you do or could perform with those devices and/or the connectivity those devices have. And of course it could be your credit card which is compromised or it
Re: (Score:2)
Even having an IP address is playing the lottery every day with these guys. https://torrentfreak.com/the-p... [torrentfreak.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or he has a public wifi hotspot or somebody hacked his wifi. Harder to do with a car. Somebody would be robbing that bank with your car while at the same time you are eating at McDonald's in said car...
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot that not only do people setup unsecured wifi... there's an app for that. The skill level required is can you search for an app and install it, but that's not as likely as a trojan that turns your pc or router into a proxy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why doesn't an IP address prove something? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes it might be.
But if you trade cars every 3 months, and the burglary occurred a day after you traded for it, that makes it potentially a bit complicated.
And of course, you bought it used, so do we want to try and figure out whether the previous owner was responsible? Oh, wait, we don't know who they are, because there are no records. But even if they were, continue...
And, to complete the scenario, because you weren't paying attention to the known flaw in the keyless entry, someone has been driving your car off and on when you were asleep/drunk/working, and you don't know. Hell, once they drove it around WHILE YOU WERE IN THE CAR AND NO ONE COULD TELL BECAUSE THEY WERE DRIVING AN EXACT COPY.
Your garage door isn't an impediment. The crooks can throw dice to choose which way to defeat that layer of security.
Between DHCP and WiFi hijacking, MAC spoofing and general tomfoolery, IP addresses are mostly useless for figuring out who did what. The copyright holders should give up now, or serialize every single copy of everything. Ha.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This car analogy is getting more complicated than the actual, real, situation it was supposed to be an analogy for. Does anybody on Slashdot seriously not understand at least the basics of how IP addresses work?
Yeah, but this is slashdot where folks love a good car analogy. They even do them on car related stories!
Re: (Score:2)
Those are things you can get using a GUI, but only if you know how to write Visual Basic. Maybe you're elite enough to do that, but you don't have to rub it in. EXCUUUSE ME for not being a rocket scientician!
Re: (Score:2)
matching plates?? Are they a full match or a part auto match that failed?
http://america.aljazeera.com/o... [aljazeera.com]
Re: (Score:2)
At least with that you still have the right to a JURY TRAIL AND An public defender. Unlike in a civil DMCA case where you have to pay for your own costs.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even close... it would be more like a bank robber was caught on a fuzzy low quality camera and he had brown hair and eyes, average height and build, and was wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt.
There are all kinds of malicious software that sets up botnets and can act as a proxy, not all of them are detected by AV software some of them actually attack AV software not to mention all the other ways that can work. If you think an IP address is that hard to trick or spoof you are reading the wrong site.
Re: (Score:2)
Should be trivial to have false clients on the honeypot trackers by compromising routers. The internet is less of a net and more of a tree at the edges. We would be fools to think this is not common.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's various levels of evidence. The car shouldn't be enough evidence to convict, but it's probably enough evidence to justify a search warrant. IIRC, in the publicized Internet piracy trials, the main evidence has been what was on the defendant's computer, obtained through legal processes based on probable cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are the logs generated on a server with a correct to the millisecond time? Are the copyright holder's computers accurate to the millisecond? Are they sure the IP isn't spoofed?
Re: (Score:3)
Given Adam Sandler is directly responsible for this situation, it's quite obvious that he should be jailed for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Given Adam Sandler is directly responsible for this situation, it's quite obvious that he should be jailed for that.
Are we not looking for a volunteer for a one way Mars trip?
Re:non sequitur? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:non sequitur? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty sure Apple won't be releasing a 17" MacBook Pro.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Apple won't be releasing a 17" MacBook Pro.
Of course they will. The rains come early this time of year.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Apple won't be releasing a 17" MacBook Pro.
Of course they will. The rains come early this time of year.
Of course, we wore onions on our belt back then.
Re: non sequitur? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Second time you posted this.
Second time it makes no sense whatsoever.
It's in an article about IP addresses/copyrights. WTF does that have to do with Oculus in any way?
Well, the thing is that the "Designated Hitter Rule" has been a subject of controversy for quite a while now, what with all the wind farms that are being proposed in Norway. I don't know how I could make it any clearer.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought everyone has agreed that Sony was going to produce all nuclear weapons from now on.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the thing is that the "Designated Hitter Rule" has been a subject of controversy for quite a while now
Far less controversial than the Designated Hitler rule, let me assure you.
Re: (Score:2)
Far less controversial than the Designated Hitler rule, let me assure you.
I'm pretty sure that the Designated Hitler rule is why they only have nein guys on a baseball team.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF does that have to do with Oculus in any way?
Because in response to community backlash, Oculus has decided to change its DRM policy (again) to allow HTC Vive games to play on the Oculus Rift virtual-reality system.
Re: (Score:2)
The software on the Oculus Rift is their Intellectual Property (IP), and this shares a common acronym with IP Addresses. Also, in response to community backlash, Oculus has decided to change its DRM policy (again) to allow HTC Vive games to play on the Oculus Rift virtual-reality system.
TL;DR: Woooosh
Re: (Score:2)
Easier than editing for content, right Timothy!
Re: (Score:2)
He torrented the movie...he's getting in trouble for uploading. Downloading is not a crime.
Exactly. As far as I know there is still nothing illegal about downloading or watching pirated content. If I find a pirated movie on youtube (of which there are ton, btw) or any other random website, then it's perfectly legal for me to watch it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is the way that I understand the current copyright laws in the USA. I'm not even sure possession of downloaded movies is illegal as long as you don't try to give/sell them to someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically (legally) you are wrong. Downloading a movie requires making a copy of it, one which the hosting site is not authorized to allow.
That could easily be said for something saved to your harddrive but you would have a much harder case making that for something streamed from youtube. Also, in youtube's case, google would likely have to give them your ip address and google is the more guilty of the two parties.
Re: (Score:2)
To be precise, downloading is a copyright violation, but not criminal copyright infringement. Uploading to something that is generally available on the Internet is. So, while downloading is not a crime, it's still something the copyright holder can sue for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)