Court Rules IP Address Alone Insufficient To Identify Pirate
 

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 a court in Rome has decided that on the contrary, an IP address does not identify an infringer, only a particular connection.

http://torrentfreak.com/court-rules-...ringer-090615/


about fucking time, the court willingness to say just because your ip address was used you guilty of a copyright infringement was totally fucked up
It was bullshit to expect people to buy 20k military grade wireless routers to be safe from being procecuted for copyright infringment when a hacker uses one of those script kiddie tools to hack the wireless password.

If that makes it to the US a LOT of spammers are going to walk.

Does that mean I don't have to use my neighbors wireless network anymore?

Can be avoid very easy.

this case if for copyright infringement not spamming, in a spamming case, it would be the mail server ip address. which would have to be bought and authorized by a person.





please explain.

i think thats kind of the basis for this, not protecting you the downloading queen, but the person who is to stupid to protect their wireless network. So the problem comes when your just some 40 year old lady who got a wireless router through her ISP to use with her laptop, now facing criminal charges :1orglaugh

I just checked and almost all my neighbors have an open wifi with no password protection. When I was in LA my neighbor had a wifi signal that was stronger than mine when I was in my living room and my stupid laptop would always try to connect to it (because he had the same SSID as the router at a clients office "linksys").

I used to get fed up and just log into his router (yes, he didnt even set a password besides "admin") and turn off his wifi. then about a day later i would see it turn back on and finally i never saw it again, but ironically that same day one started to pop up with "netgear" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

most 128/256 bit encrypted passwords can be brute force obtained with free scripting tools
so even setting up security on a standard wireless router is not enough to protect you from liablity.

Which is totally fucked up.
What was funny is that the RIAA has been trying to get laws passed that basically make you liable to the same extent as if you were the actual downloader just because you paid for the internet connection.

And many people try and argue that the way it should be because it is too difficult to catch the downloaders if you didn't.

Amazingly enough if you proposed that the kiddie porn laws should be changed so that everyone behind the same gateway ip should be jailed to make it easier to catch pedos they would cry bloody murder.

Tonight there will be a piracy party.

Tonight they're gonna timeshift back to 1999.

Awesome news.

Gideon seems to take such glee when any news that seems to support or encourage unauthorized downloading is announced, lol. I agree in one sense- it makes a stronger case when you can prove the identity of the persons re-publishing your work without authorization using multiple pieces of evidence. I enjoyed reading the story at http://wp-board.com of how that one photographer caught some of the people illegally using his content using detective work, an attorney and the rules of law.

some of those techniques violate canada privacy laws, can say anything about that state laws because i don't live in that state.

But if you tried that stuff against a canadian the end result would be 10k fine for each piece of evidence collected. And that would be a fine you would have to pay BEFORE you started the case against a canadian.

For making porn, the Taliban would cut off your balls BEFORE you are tried according to Sharia law. Then, they would really punish you with cruxification and/or beheading just because you are a pornographer.

Just letting you know in case you visit a Taliban country.

The Canadian Taliban does the same thing. It's just that the wait to see the castration doctor in Canada is about 20 years.

funny
what is really sad is that is not far from the truth.

Gideon I'd like to see who is running around someones neighborhood with a wireless sniffer in a mobile van with the ability to hack into a WPA protected wireless system so they can upload stolen porn. Not saying that people can't do it. But a kid with a free brute force script? No way. You're going straight past the believable and directly to the improbable as you always do in your arguments. Remember...the rest of us are living in the real world. :)

google airsnort

if you know what the router is (which most people tell you because they leave the it as the name of the wireless connection) you can hack 128 bit encryption in 190 seconds

oh and btw the dead guy who's family was sued by the RIAA lived in an apartment building. no van need, just someone on a close by floor.

btw i live in a house, with a big backyard and i can access to my neighbours wireless .
his network id shows up on my list too. again no van needed.


i love how you try and argue it impossible by choosing a completely irrelevant unlikely situation and pretend it is the ONLY way it could happen.

You are thinking driving around Rob, but many times there might be 10 or 15 neighbors able to jump on your connection. Thats more likely than someone driving around. If they can identify the mac id its more likely to narrow down who really did the upload, but thats a bit tricky. Also have to think of cantenna's etc. I've jumped on connections 1/4 mile down the road in a pinch before with a bit of aiming with a cantenna lol

you would be surprised how easy it actually is, I bet there are kids in every major city that are playing around with this kind of stuff already


and you don't need any elaborate "wireless sniffer", any laptop can do, and the antenna that sticky mentions can cover a pretty wide range, many blocks in all directions with a signal booster

What do you think about BlackIce?

I thought the eye patch and parrot always gives it away.

Why would you rely on an IP address when you should be looking for the eye patch and parrot instead? *rimshot* wakka wakka wakka!

I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

But the fact that you are saying that a 12 year old kid would steal an army communications vehicle, rewire it to find wireless, then pick up his classmates from school, create a grid of every major city and then systematically drive up and down every road looking for a wireless connection and then crack into wpa wireless all the while uploading porn and stealing govt. secrets just blows my mind.

Where the fuck do you come up with these crazy ass ideas anyway?

He will come up with any crazy idea he can think of to justify piracy.

The Internet should be worth trillions, unfortunately it's only worth billions. Because of theft. Until piracy is solved the Internet is held back. Which also effects Gideon's income unless he profits from piracy.

Solving piracy should be about punishing the guilty, not extorting the innocent. And that's exactly what some of the big music and movie companies are resorting to: extortion.

Right now I'm in my living room... quiet suburban area... and my laptop can pick up 12 wireless networks. If I add a 7db omni-directional antenna ($45), I can pick up 30. If I add a 12db directional antenna ($70) and move around a bit, I can detect 70+ networks... So i'd say a 12 year old kid doesn't even need a special military van...

of course you live in a house with a big backyard, i'm sure the slide and sandbox you played in as a child are are still there. dude, time to stop obsessing about things that really have no impact on your life. mom and dad won't be around forever.:2 cents:

It's an Italian court lol that says nothing

but that point, i never mentioned stealing a military van, and driving around to hijack a signal i was talking about things like this

or this
or this

that everyone else examples,
me own i live in a house in the london ontario, the forest city, with tons of trees between properties and i can still pickup the wireless signals of my neighbours with my laptop sitting in the middle of my house (with all the walls, trees, area of lawn etc acting as interference).

no one but you is taking about driving around in a military truck but you. That the point i was making you ignore all the reasonable ways this happens and jump to the unreasonable one to try and make your bogus point.

i think they are right

From what I'm reading, it's you coming up with all these crazy scenarios. :1orglaugh

The military truck post was a joke gideon. I was trying to type the most outrageous shit I could think of. :1orglaugh
That wasn't serious dude. :)

And for the record I am of course anti piracy, and one of the ones fully for our industry taking steps to stop the overt downloading of our content and spreading thereof. ;) but I think most already know that hehe. But ya its very simple to jump on someone elses connection and do illegal downloading, uploading, and other acts. Even with wep enabled its a simple thing to crack that with a linux distro disc that runs off the cd or dvd drive, crack wep, log into your main os and jump on a "secure" connection. So I agree ip shouldn't be allowed to be used in prosecuting. Would have to tie it to the actual computer used and its mac id otherwise they can't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

hense my statement about it being about fucking time
if you look at the number of people who have lost their homes, paid out 1,000 in fines based solely on that flimsy level of evidence it make me sick.

I have never supported copyright infringment, i however don't support taking away fair use, or procecuting people who are intermediaries for a technology that can be both used for a legitimate fair use purpose and an infringing one as well (like the vcr, and bit torrent)

like i have said for the last 2 years
leave the seeders alone
leave the tracker alone
leave the leachers who have a fair use right to the content alone
go after the leachers who don't have a fair use right to the content.

It's not hard to hack into a wireless router, especially if you already have an internet connection.

It's easier to hack into the router's admin area and change it to your liking.

and i find it interesting that you precieve a story about the court finally restoring the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty to be "support or encouraging unauthorized downloading"

nothing in that ruling support unauthorized downloading, if you have proof that a person actually downloaded the content without authorization you can still convict them. All this stops is the unilateral assumption that just because you paid for the connection you have to be guilty of the infringement.

sooo... just how would you propose that the 'law' do exactly that?

it still comes down to, the owner of the website should be responsible and TURN IN ALL the people who upload/post illegal content - and NOT make their sites so that the "leecher(s) who don't have a fair use right to the content" also don't have ACCESS to that content or have upload rights.

regardless of our spirited debates over time - I agree with some of what you have to say - but until you come up with some way of stopping it from being the 'perfect crime' I shall continue to ask you .... what the hell is to be done when almost everyone is "innocent" - and the guilty can't be touched because they are protected by 'privacy'

someone has to be guilty - and there has to be enforcable methodologies for detection and prosecution.

so lay out a couple ideas on how you think that that could be accomplished.

again if that was the way the law worked then the vcr would have been illegal until they found a way to prevent people from daisy chaining them together

Thank God that was not how it works or the biggest money making opp for this industry would not have happened.

That being said i have already pointed out 43 times that setting up a private tracker does exactly that it issolates all the innocent on your system and the guilty on the public system. You might not be able to convict them for copyright infringement, but you can sue them for breach of contract. And since you are fully providing for the fair use right to use swarm as a backup/timeshifting/recovery device, there is no fair use to hide behind for that breach.

if you don't want to setup what amounts to a completely free solution (subsidized by advertising just like the public trackers) then you should be looking to monetize the distribution instead of trying to prevent it (like what happened with the vcr).

Court Rules IP Address Alone Insufficient To Identify Pirate
...
...
...
...
Common sense however, still dictates that's perfectly sufficient to identify a douchebag

I think you still don't get it

I agree with the private tracker solution but...

there is a crime happening - there needs to be a way for the cops to charge someone

telling everyone that the only recourse they have is a 'civil suit' just doesn't cut it. Saying that I have to identify the theives, find a way to contact them, politely ask them to stop (DMCA), do a follow up, start the whole 5 year process of lawyer/court to try and sue some 15 year old in moms basement - they are fuckin stealing a product - cops need a way to enforce. Theres a million websites and theives out there - no one has the bankroll to 'civil suit' them all.

if someone steals my car - I call the cops. But you say that if someone steals my digital product, then its up to me to be the cop.

again I ask - what legal rights do I have to get someones ass busted by the law? (and I'll keep rephrasing this question til you address it)

try and get the cops to go after someone making copies of videos one at a time and giving them to their friends. That is the level of infringement that you are trying to justify police involvement. The network creates a massive infringement (assuming you don't setup a private tracker).
But that is the point the private tracker solves the problem completely, sueing for the economic damage of the breach of contract and ignoring the copyright issue completely solves the problem.
So why do you need to change the law, and take way peoples right (like the right to be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty).

monetizing is the better solution to praying that some politician can be suckered into writing a law that stomps all over people rights to provide you with the protection you want but don't need (because you can already solve the problem with a private tracker).

not really discovery is a bitch


also, paper trails

your vcr argument is dated - its not about 'a person' giving 'a copy' to their 'friend or two'

its about mass distribution in the scale of millions - COMPLETELY different - tho the vcr judgements were fair when applied to the 'physical tape copy' - they no longer apply.

in canada - even murderers are 'innocent until proven guilty' even when caught red-handed - this however does NOT stop the cops from arresting them. So, why can't the digital theives be busted, presumed innocent, and sent thru the arrest/court system?? So, I say your argument is hot air - I'm not saying that they are to be assumed guilty - I am saying that if they steal they are (allegedly) theives and treated as such, and that laws be made to give lawenforcement the wherewithall to actively pursue them.

the private tracker idea is sound but still leaves everyone in the realm of a 'civil suit' against people who couldn't pay you anyways (or would dissappear, or live in an untouchable country or....) - and again - I have to do all the work and lay out the cash. And you know well that it is impossible for any one person to have the resources to identify, track down, and sue all of them.

so - you avoid the 'enforcement of law by the police' issue by basically saying that they shouldn't be involved and I need to personally track every website on the internet myself to 'find the infringers'

sorry - still haven't converted me to your ways

and I shall support every effort made by the courts and law enforcement to bring this to a halt - including voting for 'friendly' political persons/parties

but it not the average bit torrent user seeds to parity which means they are only giving away 1 copy really. so each transaction is exactly the same one copy given away

The only way you can get to mass distribution is to combine all of those individual transactions and falsely assign responsiblity to just one person.

the fact is you could do the same thing in the vcr example by adding up all the individual copies made by the millions of people and say see that mass distribution it should be punished

That a straw man arguement at best
when you take into account the fact that in the vcr example you are giving away a complete working copy of the file and in the bit torrent example even if you seed to parity you are giving no one a complete working copy of the file it actually the complete opposite.



again not the same thing, because they don't go ransacking thru your private info before they have at least a reasonable level of proof that you are potentially guilty.

i have no problem courts going after people if they are proven to be guilty without violating their privacy rights. prove to the level that is necessary to get the courts involved without using any tactic that violates their privacy or pay the fines for those violations and cops should get involved

but your bitching about privacy rights getting in the way of convicting those people, the police in the murders example you gave have to obey those privacy rights when investigating so why shouldn't you have to in the case of your digital thieves example.

of course not it all about getting enough proof that the person is actually guilty of a crime without violating their privacy rights to do so. just because that level investigation would be cost prohibitive does not give you the right to take away peoples rights. IF it can't be done effectively then it is simple better to let it go and monetize the technology instead (like the movie industry did with the vcr).


and i will vote for the political parties which support fair use and maintaining the rights and freedoms we have. I will also make sure that every time anyone abuses those laws (like the suing of the dead person for the actual actions of a hacker) that every potential voter knows the names of the politicians who voted for that stupid law.

The more those laws are abused and ultimately turned over by the courts the less likely those politicians will get elected again.

We will see which one works, given how every fair use vs copyright battle has worked so far, i think my side will win again.

heh gideon

did some reading on 'fair-use', domestically, and the international applications thereof

I can see I have a whole lot more reading to do - and I will, so this is my last post in this thread. But i'm going to get an education on this so we shall meet again :)

I totally grant you that the 'cases' that you oft quote from are indeed present - you don't seem to acknowledge the numerous 'other examples' that dispute almost all that you say, and you don't explain why the examples you DO cite, don't actually apply to the current state of 'internet mass file sharing' but to a case that is quite dissimilar.

but from what I have read so far, I will leave you with this....





till we meet again ... :thumbsup

go back and re read my previous statements
i have complained about many of those ruling
arguing that they should/would be overturned because of those fundamental flaws in the logic of the arguement
so far i have been right every single time :winkwink:
hopefully i will be right about all of the outstanding cases as well :thumbsup

virtually every win can be traced back to the use of the mgm studios inc vs grokster ruling (directly or indirectly) as a basis.
under that ruling the justices refused to consider the fair use right of access shifting because the sharer was giving away a complete working copy of the file (comitting an infringement) so even if the downloader had a fair use right to the content (access shifting) the transaction would still be infringing.

the fundamental flaw is what happens when the seeder doesn't give anyone a complete working copy of the file. When the attempt to play the content the seeder gives you results in a non working file.

the logic is that the refusal to consider fair use has to be lifted an the arguement has to be made.

The problem is that no one has attempted to use that arguement yet, probably because they think it is cheaper to simply argue that they are like google and should be protected because they are just a search engine.

Google wzcook

It will crack the encrypted network in one second. Seriously, you just press the button and you are in.

And there are at least 8 wireless networks that come up where I live. Only one is secured.

Soon, people will be liable for infringement committed on their networks even if they weren't responsible. It will be like red light cameras - the ticket goes to the owner of the vehicle; it doesn't matter who was driving.

Gideon sure does have a lot of spare time to school us all.

It might be insufficient to identify, but in most cases sufficient for further investigation. Unfortunately, the problem is the amount of piracy. Not the investigation methods.
What I do not understand is, why not just cut the crap and do the obvious instead: legally shut down all domains and server IPs that distribute or host infringements? All it takes, is international agreement (like copyright), international force to do it, and a few mouse clicks. I know this is complicated, but if some country wants to be a part of internet, it should act like a part of it. Not selfish.

and next we should go after porn too, best way to stop all that kiddie porn is to just get rid of porn all together.

who cares if there are people who have a legal right to enjoy that legal porn, fuck em
you want to be part of the internet you have to religious right complient.

your solution is just as absurd BTW because you are completely ignoring the fact that many people using those sites have a legal right to get that content from that source (fair use/legalized by piracy tax etc)

shutting down all the sites by domain or ip is just as valid as shutting down the entire industry to stop kiddie porn.

Gideon, I think his solution is your worst nightmare. I know you love the torrents and you think you should have the right to join my site and take everything and re-post it on a torrent. I understand your position.

But if what Dirty Dane states happens...you're done. And no, it's not the same as shutting down porn to stop CP. Little thing called Free Speech.

What it would be like is exactly what it would be...stopping piracy. You keep saying what a great advantage it is to all of us to have piracy and all the free advertising.

Funny how everybody is down 40% + since piracy took off over the last 2 years. If you were correct we'd all be swimming in cash by now despite ourselves.

Look, I know you love torrents. And you think you're going to get rich off of your "innovative" ideas of using torrents.

But don't you think that me and others like me who have been making millions of dollars in our businesses for years and mass marketing on a scale that you never have...don't you think WE might know better than a guy like you who has never worked in adult at all and has no record of success in anything?

Just consider that. Not saying that it precludes a person like you from having a great idea and making the big time. I'm just saying that perhaps you are putting all your eggs in the wrong basket here.

Sales across the board are going down. And after almost 2 years of tube and torrents exploding traffic wise...sales CONTINUE to spiral downwards. Your theory is disproved every minute of every day when a person downloads an unauthorized copy of a persons work instead of paying for it.

There, I just blinked my eyes and someone stole another scene and disproved you.

And when everybody has had enough and lost enough money on this...change will happen and you won't be happy about it. The LAW will change. And the courts only interpret law. So they will have to rule in a way that reflects the law. Sorry Gideon. But I really think you're wasting your talents here.

ya - I know I said i was not going to post here again but C'MON Gideon

you are admittedly the king of bad analogies - but even you should have seen thru this one.

pizza store sells cocaine out the back door - do the cops shut down the pizza industry - or the food industry? no, of course not - but that pizza store gets shut down.

a government official is caught in a huge kickback scheme involving government contracts - do the cops shut down all the worlds governments? no, of course not - but the asshole gets his taste of justice.

bikers/mafia/mob/gangs.... are involved in 'legitimate' businesses - do the cops shut down worldwide commerce? no, of course not - but they surely actively pursue the 'bad elements'.

I could go on with a lot more examples but even you can't be dense enough not to realize you are wrong in this analogy.

the internet is no different - the porn industry is no different and the torrent/sharing sites are no different. If a site is guilty of infringement - then pull the plug on them. If a hosting company knowingly allows it on their system - pull their plug. If an ISP recruits this type of activity - pull their plug. The rest of us will be just as happy without those 'elements' and the internet will carry on. And if you can pin it on the end user - then by all means - cops knockin on the door is appropriate.

SOMEONE has to be responsible and/or culpable

our governments and law enforcement hate a 'perfect crime' unless they are the ones profiting from or controlling it.

the reaper will come...