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

and what about steve?

http://www.toolsforschools.ca/blog/w.../homealone.jpg

too busy suing google, yandex, baidu and yahoo to care.

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?

No one ever sues anyone with these scams. They are just to extort money.

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...

Yes, but this isn't about evidence, it's about scamming people out of money.

So, as far as you know should be good enough for the court of GFY opinion. Got it.

why do you buy face pictures?

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.

This is great news, for someone, somewhere. I'm sure of it.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Damian, I should have written "is/isn't".

My bad.

Wasn't there previous rulings along these lines? I thought this was old news.