NY Judge Rules IP Not Enough

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • ING82
    Confirmed User
    • Jul 2011
    • 184
    #1

    NY Judge Rules IP Not Enough

    Hollywood is not going to be happy about this one. A New York judge has ruled that an IP address alone is not enough to prove that a particular person downloaded files illegally, reports TorrentFreak. The ?landmark case? could have potentially devastating effects on a number of ?mass-BitTorrent? lawsuits currently taking place around the country.

    In his ruling on an infringement case involving the illegal downloading of an adult film, New York Magistrate Judge Gary Brown says that copyright infringement cases that provide only an IP address as evidence of who made the illegal download(s) are a ?waste of judicial resources.?

    Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/ip-...#ixzz1uZ0IH3jv
    Tags: None
    • lucas131
      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      • Aug 2004
      • 11475
      #2
      and what about steve?

        Comment

        • Barefootsies
          Choice is an Illusion
          • Feb 2005
          • 42635
          #3
          Originally posted by lucas131
          and what about steve?
          Should You Email Your Members?

          Link1 | Link2 | Link3

          Enough Said.

          "Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

            Comment

            • ottopottomouse
              She is ugly, bad luck.
              • Jan 2010
              • 13177
              #4
              Originally posted by lucas131
              and what about steve?
              too busy suing google, yandex, baidu and yahoo to care.
              ↑ see post ↑
              13101

                Comment

                • raymor
                  Confirmed User
                  • Oct 2002
                  • 3745
                  #5
                  See the thread from several days ago on this topic. The judge ruled the waste was in misuse of the process because they kept getting subpoenas but never actually suing anyone.

                  I'm curious why one would assume Steve has nothing but an IP. It's simple to get further evidence, such as by using methods I mentioned in another thread. Additionally, Strongbox uses methods I did not mention, but it can tell whether it's me on my computer ir if it's you. He could also be using more advanced methods than we have used in the past. Have you wondered why we're buying up thousands of pictures of faces?
                  For historical display only. This information is not current:
                  support@bettercgi.com ICQ 7208627
                  Strongbox - The next generation in site security
                  Throttlebox - The next generation in bandwidth control
                  Clonebox - Backup and disaster recovery on steroids

                    Comment

                    • DamianJ
                      Too lazy to set a custom title
                      • Jul 2006
                      • 15808
                      #6
                      Originally posted by raymor
                      See the thread from several days ago on this topic. The judge ruled the waste was in misuse of the process because they kept getting subpoenas but never actually suing anyone.
                      No one ever sues anyone with these scams. They are just to extort money.

                      Originally posted by raymor
                      I'm curious why one would assume Steve has nothing but an IP.
                      Well he's never sued anyone, afaik. So if this about stopping piracy and not just lining his wallet, surely he would have sued? You know, at least one person...

                      Originally posted by raymor
                      It's simple to get further evidence, such as by using methods I mentioned in another thread.
                      Yes, but this isn't about evidence, it's about scamming people out of money.

                        Comment

                        • baddog
                          So Fucking Banned
                          • Apr 2001
                          • 107089
                          #7
                          So, as far as you know should be good enough for the court of GFY opinion. Got it.

                            Comment

                            • d-null
                              . . .
                              • Apr 2007
                              • 13724
                              #8
                              Originally posted by raymor
                              .... Have you wondered why we're buying up thousands of pictures of faces?
                              why do you buy face pictures?

                              __________________
                              Looking for a custom TUBE SCRIPT that supports massive traffic, load balancing, billing support, and h264 encoding? Hit up Konrad!
                              Looking for designs for your websites or custom tubesite design? Hit up Zuzana Designs
                              Check out the #1 WordPress SEO Plugin: CyberSEO Suite

                                Comment

                                • DamianJ
                                  Too lazy to set a custom title
                                  • Jul 2006
                                  • 15808
                                  #9
                                  Originally posted by baddog
                                  So, as far as you know should be good enough for the court of GFY opinion. Got it.
                                  Got a link to demonstrate otherwise? I've looked and can find nothing and I think in Americanland when someone goes to court that is public record?

                                    Comment

                                    • baddog
                                      So Fucking Banned
                                      • Apr 2001
                                      • 107089
                                      #10
                                      Originally posted by DamianJ
                                      Got a link to demonstrate otherwise? I've looked and can find nothing and I think in Americanland when someone goes to court that is public record?
                                      You misunderstand, I have seen the light. As far as you know Steve has not sued anyone and is only using IPs. I do not know how I could have been so dense. What was I thinking? I apologize. What was I thinking? Of course you would know if anyone had been sued or if Steve had more evidence than an IP.

                                      That will never happen again.

                                        Comment

                                        • HushMoney
                                          Confirmed User
                                          • Apr 2005
                                          • 2256
                                          #11
                                          This is great news, for someone, somewhere. I'm sure of it.
                                          Hushmoney.com

                                          Interracialpass
                                          Hushpass

                                            Comment

                                            • DamianJ
                                              Too lazy to set a custom title
                                              • Jul 2006
                                              • 15808
                                              #12
                                              Originally posted by baddog
                                              You misunderstand, I have seen the light. As far as you know Steve has not sued anyone and is only using IPs. I do not know how I could have been so dense. What was I thinking? I apologize. What was I thinking? Of course you would know if anyone had been sued or if Steve had more evidence than an IP.

                                              That will never happen again.
                                              A simple "no, I cannot provide a link to any cases taken to court Damian" would have sufficed Lloyd.

                                              Still, happy days all round, this landmark judgement will stop the quasi-blackmailers running this disgusting scam anymore. Which is good, isn't it?

                                                Comment

                                                • baddog
                                                  So Fucking Banned
                                                  • Apr 2001
                                                  • 107089
                                                  #13
                                                  Originally posted by DamianJ
                                                  A simple "no, I cannot provide a link to any cases taken to court Damian" would have sufficed Lloyd.

                                                  Still, happy days all round, this landmark judgement will stop the quasi-blackmailers running this disgusting scam anymore. Which is good, isn't it?
                                                  Since you obviously know much more about US law than I, and therefore, most people on this board, what exactly is landmark about a ruling by a NY magistrate? Are all NY rulings automatically entered into law? Are they automatically citable as if it had gone to the state supreme court; or is it just another judge with his own personal opinion?

                                                    Comment

                                                    • TisMe
                                                      Confirmed User
                                                      • Aug 2008
                                                      • 1719
                                                      #14
                                                      Damian, the only thing "Landmark" about this decision is that it is the first (that I've heard of) to come down on that side of the "IP is sufficient to prove the user" question. Several other courts have ruled the other way and now this Judge has ruled this way.

                                                      There are now precedents on both sides of the issue and the Supreme Court hasn't dealt with this yet. May be many years before they do, if ever, and who knows which way they'll go.

                                                      All we have now are judicial rulings on both sides of the issue.

                                                        Comment

                                                        • DamianJ
                                                          Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                          • Jul 2006
                                                          • 15808
                                                          #15
                                                          Originally posted by baddog
                                                          Since you obviously know much more about US law than I, and therefore, most people on this board, what exactly is landmark about a ruling by a NY magistrate? Are all NY rulings automatically entered into law? Are they automatically citable as if it had gone to the state supreme court; or is it just another judge with his own personal opinion?
                                                          There have been many rulings by judges stating that an IP address /= a person. There hasn't been one where the judge goes into such detail explaining why that is.

                                                          I mean, even you must get it now?

                                                          Or do you still think your BFF Steve sending quasi-blackmail letters is cool?

                                                            Comment

                                                            • DamianJ
                                                              Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                              • Jul 2006
                                                              • 15808
                                                              #16
                                                              Originally posted by TisMe
                                                              Damian, the only thing "Landmark" about this decision is that it is the first (that I've heard of) to come down on that side of the "IP is sufficient to prove the user" question.
                                                              You mean ISN'T sufficient?

                                                              I'm just glad the US legal system is catching up with the UK in this abhorrent scam.

                                                              The guy that started it here was fined and disbarred. I hope the ambulance chasing cunt lawyers trying to extort money from people in the US get similar treatment soon.

                                                                Comment

                                                                • DamianJ
                                                                  Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                  • Jul 2006
                                                                  • 15808
                                                                  #17
                                                                  Suing people that infringe your copyright it excellent. But you need proof. And a court. Not just a stamp and a letter asking for money.

                                                                    Comment

                                                                    • TisMe
                                                                      Confirmed User
                                                                      • Aug 2008
                                                                      • 1719
                                                                      #18
                                                                      Damian, I should have written "is/isn't".

                                                                      My bad.

                                                                        Comment

                                                                        • kane
                                                                          Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                          • Aug 2001
                                                                          • 20684
                                                                          #19
                                                                          Wasn't there previous rulings along these lines? I thought this was old news.

                                                                            Comment

                                                                            Previous template Next
                                                                            Working...