Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

IP address does not prove online piracy, US judge says in landmark ruling

Published time: January 22, 2014 01:05
Edited time: January 24, 2014 19:50
Reuters / Lee Jae-Won

Reuters / Lee Jae-Won

A US federal judge in Washington wrote that a suspected internet pirate should not be prosecuted solely because his computer's IP address was identified by a film studio. The landmark opinion may tip the fortunes of defendants in similar situations.

The Hollywood executives behind the movie ‘Elf Man’ filed a lawsuit against hundreds of people, alleging that they were guilty of copyright infringement because their internet protocol (IP) address was found to have illegally downloaded the film. An IP address can be likened to a computer's online fingerprint; each is unique to the machine it originates from.

Copyright holders seeking to take offenders to court often put fake movie files online, record the hundreds or thousands of IP addresses that download it, and then provide that information to the courts in an attempt to identify and sue hapless users on the other side of the screen.

The studio argued that “the defendants either (a) downloaded the pirated film themselves, or (b) permitted, facilitated, or promoted the use of their Internet connections by others to download the film,” according to TorrentFreak.

Washington District Judge Robert Lasnik said this week that the rationale is insufficient, in part because it begins with the assumption of guilt. Ruling on a motion to dismiss the claim, Lasnik sided with the defendants because the conditions described in complaint section b were overly vague.

[The movie studio] has actually alleged no more than the named defendants purchased Internet access and failed to ensure that others did not use that access to download copyrighted material,” the judge wrote.

Lasnik also said that there was no proof that the person who could wind up facing a lawsuit was in fact the person who chose to download the copy of ‘Elf Man.’

Simply identifying the account holder associated with an IP address tells us very little about who actually downloaded 'Elf Man' using that IP address,” he wrote. “While it is possibly that the subscriber is the one who participated in the BitTorrent swarm, it is also possible that a family member, guest, or freeloader engaged in the infringing conduct.”

Other judges presiding over similar cases in the past have agreed with Lasnik, creating a precedent that has required copyright enforcers to narrow down their list of suspects before attempting to launch a case.

Last year, a Sydney-based law firm revealed that courts in both Australia and the US have refused to turn over personal details of internet users who downloaded content without permission.

For example, in an office or at home, where there is a WiFi connection, only one IP address will be allocated to that wireless connection. This means that every user of each device (computer, iPad, iPhone, etc) connected to that WiFi connection will use the same IP address. Even a random passerby accessing the WiFi network would be using the same IP address,” lawyers from Marque Lawyers wrote, as quoted by TorrentFreak.

This decision makes a lot of sense to us If it holds up, copyright owners will need to be a whole lot more savvy about how they identify and pursue copyright infringers and, perhaps, we’ve seen the end of the mass 'John Doe' litigation.”

Comments (8)

 

kretek 08.02.2014 07:39

Entertainment industry entertained by the judge. How about that? No more jokers allowed to con the public. Serves them right. A swift kick by the judge got them saying: Huh? What's going to happen to our free stream of perpetual income? How will we survive if the judges that we depend upon throw the book at us?

 

Mike Littlefield 26.01.2014 04:09

Prior assumption of guilt is sufficient for conviction in the courts of the united states. Not under the Constitution, granted, but since when does that 'antiquated document' have any relevance in the us 'justice' system?

God bless america.

 

Kinky Jon 25.01.2014 21:05

Gary Snyder 23.01.2014 02:38


I do not support stealing and piracy. I do support the proper application of law.

  


"Stealing&quo t; is unlawfully taking someone's physical property and thus depriving them of it. Piracy is attacking ships on the high seas, despite Hollywood's attempts to hijack this already negative word to for PR purposes.

C opying digital media is neither stealing nor piracy. It's copyright infringement at best. Let's not play into the hands of these slimy Hollywood PR people.

View all comments (8)
Add comment

Authorization required for adding comments

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

OK

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

X

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us

Follow us