digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

IP Address Alone Insufficient To Identify Pirate, Court Rule

torrentfreak.com — Anti-piracy groups and lawyers across Europe are unmovable - they say that since they logged a copyright infringement from a particular IP address, the bill payer is responsible. Now the Court of Rome has decided that on the contrary, an IP address does not identify an infringer, only a particular connection.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jun 15, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

148 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • feezus, on 06/15/2009, -4/+229Well, duh.
  • Astheria, on 06/15/2009, -10/+212If only there was a way to spoof your IP...

    Oh wait, there is.

    Pirates: 1, RIAA: -234
  • YouAreDead, on 06/15/2009, -5/+152***** the riaa
  • inactive, on 06/15/2009, -5/+151No *****.. it's like saying the person who owns the road is responsible for someone who commits a driving offence.. I love it when the copyrights holders get their knickers in a twist using stupid and warped logic then act all surprised when pirates used as warped logic to justify downloading stuff.. geniuses are all around me.
  • YouAreDead, on 06/15/2009, -4/+139***** the mpaa
  • illuminat, on 06/15/2009, -5/+135***** the CIA...

    ..wait, im in the wrong thread.
  • urbanarson, on 06/15/2009, -1/+90So if I have an unprotected WiFi access point (which I don't but many uninformed others do) and someone else logs on and downloads some MPAA/RIAA flavor of the month on it without my knowledge then I'm not liable?? What a novel idea!

    So if I have a knife in my kitchen and someone takes it and stabs a group of Japanese tourists with it then I'm not liable? What a novel idea!

    Here's hoping that this kind of precedent comes to the US, and fast.
  • Renian, on 06/15/2009, -0/+49Only 1 point?
  • layzie83, on 06/15/2009, -0/+45I got one of those cease and desist letters last week from Charter claiming I infringed copyright early this month. Problem is I haven't been a Charter customer for almost 3 years now. So yea I agree 100% that you can't identify someone purely by IP address.
  • MacParrot, on 06/15/2009, -1/+42I'm no fan of piracy, but an IP address is NOT proof of identity or of intent to steal copyright content. The RIAA isn't doing themselves any favors. Maybe they should open an East Texas office?
  • dsmx, on 06/15/2009, -0/+40actually it's about 235..
  • Rivetgeek, on 06/15/2009, -1/+38pst...i think you mean proxy. spoofing doesnt work on connection oriented protocols.
  • DarkHornet, on 06/15/2009, -0/+29As a victim of stolen Wifi and one of those Cease and Decist scare-tactic letters from the ESA (not RIAA), this is reassuring.

    (And before you flame about using wireless security, I used to be very stringent with it because it was never a problem. We live and learn. I still have to disable or switch back to useless WEP every now and again because the DS wireless service is a sack of crap).
  • FredFredrickson, on 06/15/2009, -1/+28Not quite guys. It's more like trying to nab someone riding a bus by claiming they rode a bus with a certain plate number on it. It could very well lead you to the person who committed the crime, but there are many other people who could be using it, so you need more evidence to clarify.
  • bdbr, on 06/16/2009, -0/+26What is there to like about the RIAA?
  • TallestSkil, on 06/15/2009, -1/+26Fire. Go die in one.
  • josephbloseph, on 06/15/2009, -0/+24I'm fairly sure the anti-piracy groups were well aware of this. They've just been taking advantage of the fact that many courts take them at their word.
  • elmuerte17, on 06/15/2009, -3/+25Sad how it takes a court ruling for anti-piracy groups to figure out the most basic logical things.
  • SlowFreshOil, on 06/15/2009, -1/+20Wow... Common sense. Who would have thought?
  • Stingwolf, on 06/15/2009, -0/+18"Don't ISPs log to whom each IP was given during a specific time period?"

    Probably, but that doesn't tell you -who- was using it. It just tells you to which modem/router he/she was connected.
  • harlowsmonkeys, on 06/15/2009, -0/+18A more accurate analogy would be the car, not the road. And in fact, if your car is caught speeding on, say, a speed monitoring camera, you are responsible for the ticket, unless you can prove someone else was driving.
  • macslut, on 06/15/2009, -0/+15Two problems with that thinking...

    One, making sure a network is absolutely secure is above the ability of the average person. <insert macho, "I can secure a network blindfolded"> hey, that's great, but the *average person* can't. Hell, AT&T doesn't even have their Starbucks hotspots secure as anyone can hijack a connection there by MAC spoofing.

    Secondly, why should people not be allowed to provide open WiFi? Why should the providers of the WiFi access be forced to police the actions of the users? The logic here is insane. It's not my house that's been left unlocked, it's the label or studio that left their house unlocked by having the content available online. It's like blaming me because thieves walked across my yard to rob your house, when your house had the door wide open with a big flashing neon light that said, "take anything you want".
  • CTK14A, on 06/15/2009, -1/+16OK, laymen's terms.

    So your buddy borrows your car and illegally pirates, uhh... a boat. He doesn't tell you about it. On the way back from pirating, your buddy passes a red light camera, and your car's license plate is spotted leaving the scene of the crime. After an investigation, YOU are convicted of piracy.

    Or even better -- your car is STOLEN without your knowledge, since it is returned to your driveway without you ever knowing. Regardless, YOU are convicted of piracy.

    MSBOB, that is not the way the cookie should crumble.
  • dsmx, on 06/15/2009, -0/+14IP address is linked to the bill payer not the infringer. The law is clear about that, the infringer has to be prosecuted the person owning the connection is not responsible.
  • NeoTechni, on 06/15/2009, -2/+16"An IP address is very much like a license plate. Registered to one particular person"

    That's not how IP addresses work. One IP Address could be registered to thousands of PCs.

    Never heard of NAT?
  • dsmx, on 06/15/2009, -5/+18ip address is not the equivalent of a number plate. At best it's the equivalent of the model of the car.
  • cbd37, on 06/16/2009, -0/+12My neighbor will be glad to hear that.
  • Daimwn, on 06/15/2009, -1/+13I hate the RIAA but I don't blame them for they're persistence. I blame greedy ***** that don' want to evolve an old business model.
    Record companies! You are not going to win this battle so stop trying and just start caring about your customers. Make the customers like you and they will give you money. That is how business works. Not by screwing and squeezing each dime you can from them and suing the one's that you've pissed off.
  • FuzzyDustBall, on 06/15/2009, -0/+12Um MAC address can be spoofed too....
  • kd1s, on 06/15/2009, -0/+11As an IT pro I can tell you that most ISP's in the U.S. cycle the IP addresses on their nets about every 90 to 120 days. They only keep logs for about 30 days.

    So there is a defense.
  • AngelBunny, on 06/16/2009, -0/+10that is sooo easy to get around.
  • iZealot, on 06/15/2009, -0/+10You just have a cheap router that you fixed, whats your point?
  • JeffD, on 06/15/2009, -0/+9Its not only thge uninformed that leave their connections open. I purposly leave mine open because I want to share my connection. I enjoy using open wifi connection s when I'm not at home, so in my opinion it would be pretty hypocritical to not share it.
  • dextermanas, on 06/15/2009, -0/+8WEP is old news anyways, it can be easily cracked. Switch over to WPA+PSK or something better.
  • int19h, on 06/16/2009, -0/+8And several neighbours often borrow your house while you're in it, without you noticing. And your address changes several times a day, then someone else uses that address. This could easily happen with an IP-address.

    The analogy breaks down pretty quickly.
  • TheNyquilKid, on 06/16/2009, -0/+8Exactly they know damn well judges for the most part have no clue how the internet really works.
  • Bigballa5412, on 06/16/2009, -0/+8If only we could develop some type of proxy technology to make your IP address as irrelevant to identification as possible.

    I need to hop into my time-machine, go back into the past and invent such a utility, if this technology is invented by the time of your reading this, I have succeeded.
  • andymadigan, on 06/15/2009, -1/+9In most states the law says you are responsible for something that is done with your car, unless you can prove it was stolen. There's no such law for internet connections.
  • haykuro, on 06/15/2009, -1/+9"well i recollect the days when music was free.. you could tape from the radio, burn a CD.. now the RIAA wants to know about me.. my address, my number, my ISP.. yo, bitches, ain't we still got privacy? why the president be lettin' you spy on me.. how many tricks they gonna be lettin you try on me? trying to be spying on my MP3s" the good ol' days. :)
  • guitarplex, on 06/15/2009, -2/+10Well i believe they also take a picture of the driver when they take a picture of your license plate.
  • TheNyquilKid, on 06/16/2009, -0/+7Those are meaningless letters anyway. The MPAA and RIAA tell the ISP if they do it they won't go after them, but there is no follow though.
  • densetsu23, on 06/15/2009, -3/+10@dsmx: Can you explain the logic behind your statement?

    An IP address can be linked to one specific bill payer. A license plate can be linked to one specific registrant. They are *very* similar.

    Whether or not you can determine *who* was driving the vehicle, or *who* was downloading pirated content, that's another matter altogether. Although in Canada the registered owner of the vehicle is responsible for a lot of what goes on with that vehicle... e.g. parking tickets, bylaw violations, etc.
  • Myztry, on 06/15/2009, -0/+76 of your mates are using your Internet connection at the same time, all going to different destinations.
    3 of them commit crimes. Which 3 was it? And why are you responsible when you were sleeping.
  • kkm3, on 06/15/2009, -0/+7I'm sure you shouldn't be getting charged for someone stealing from you. Leaving wifi open is a bit negligent but you can always make a case of someone hacking in.
  • brjohn9, on 06/16/2009, -0/+6Why would you be liable if some jackass stole your kitchen knife? The question is one of who violates the law. Obviously, people should encrypt their networks for their own protection, but not doing so hardly makes them liable for copyright violations.
  • paradigmx, on 06/16/2009, -0/+6Theres a difference, you register your car under your name and legally bind yourself to that car. The same cannot be said about an IP address, it is assigned to you by your ISP, but you are not bound to it, in fact, you can acquire a different IP at any time without changing any documentation. You can't just point at a car and say that's the one registered today.
  • entropy71, on 06/15/2009, -1/+7@NeoTechni - You are correct that there is such a thing as NAT, but normally this is not how ISPs work. Perhaps your place of work hides your network behind a single IP address (or group of IPs), but generally this is not the case with service providers. However, even if NAT is used you will still need to have an IP address that is unique within your ISP and they can keep track of NAT translations very easily. Your point is not a valid one.

    With that said, if you are using a wireless connection at home, or several individuals in your household are using the same Internet connection then of course you cannot state that one individual -- the bill payer -- is the culprit. This is precisely the point many others above are trying to make.

    Of course, they could just as easily use that evidence to request a scan of your computer from a judge.

    Why doesn't everyone just stop downloading music that they know to be legally ambiguous (e.g. the kind you don't pay for)? I hardly doubt that the majority of people being sued are blameless and their connections are being hijacked.
  • ingotanarchist, on 06/16/2009, -0/+6I've gotten seven of those letters from Charter threatening to have my internet turned off, but they never did.
  • macslut, on 06/15/2009, -0/+6I don't know why you were dugg down, but yes, in California anyway, they do take a picture of the driver. Furthermore, you don't have to pay the moving violation if it shows that you weren't the one driving.

    Parking tickets are different, the registrant of the vehicle pays regardless of who parked it.
  • Myztry, on 06/15/2009, -0/+6A Mac address narrows it down to a computer - assuming the address isn't spoofed.
    But that still doesn't prove the user at all. I have a minimum of two computers connected to the Internet at any one time.
    Which computers do I use? Well, which ever one is available - if any at all. It changes on a minute by minute basis.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 154 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.