U.S. Legal System Finally Figures Out IP Address ≠ Specific Person - Polidicks

[release]Lack of technical knowledge plagued the court for years, allowing the RIAA to victimize citizens Judge Harold Baker, a judge at the Central District Court of Illinois, has ruled that an internet protocol address does not necessarily mean a specific person, and thus can not be treated as such in a criminal or civil investigation. I. IP Doth Not a Person Make Technology professionals have long understood that IP addresses are closer to a zip code than a social security number. Multiple people locally accessing or remotely funneling through a specific hotspot can share IP addresses. In short, IP address offers little clue to a users' true identity. Yet for years the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), along with its international peers, has been victimizing individuals into out of court settlements, because their IP address was found to be sharing copyrighted materials. Some of these individuals didn't even have access to a computer, and in at least one case, the target of the RIAA complaint was a recently deceased elderly individual. In court, the U.S. largely upheld IP logs as evidence in trials such as the cases against Jammie Thomas-Rassert and Joel Tenenbaum. And recently, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and its sister agencies have been conducting raids on suspected child pornography viewers based solely on IP logs -- with minimal background research. In many cases these raids were later discovered to be case of mistaken identity -- but that discovery came too late for brutalized homeowners. II. The VPR Internationale Case Judge Baker ruled against a Canadian adult film distributor in the case VPR Internationale v. Does 1-1017. In the case, VPR Internationale sought court authorization to demand customer data from internet service providers. It had collected logs of IP addresses of users' illegally sharing its materials via bittorrent. By obtaining the subscriber information associated with the specific account, it hoped to coerce the subscriber into a settlement ranging from hundreds of dollars to a few thousand dollars. As there was 100,000 IPs implicated in its request, the company stood to make a multi-million dollar profit from the settlements. But as it turns out Judge Baker rejected the request, pointing out that multiple users could share an IP and requesting information would violate the subscriber's privacy rights. He said the court was not in the business of authorizing a "fishing expedition" at the consumers' expense. In the ruling [Scribd], he writes, "Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School, noted that whether you’re guilty or not, you look like a suspect. Could expedited discovery be used to wrest quick settlements, even from people who have done nothing wrong? .. [T]he embarrassment of public exposure might be too great, the legal system too daunting and expensive, for some to ask whether the plaintiff VPR has competent evidence to prove its case." III. The Road Ahead The issue of IP addresses as evidence has hardly been laid to rest, though the practice was dealt a major blow by the ruling. Generally, only higher courts will rule against an existing precedent in the U.S. So the question becomes when and if a higher court takes this issue up, will they come to the same conclusions? The public in the U.S. will have to wait to see whether future justice follows the same logical, well-informed perspective of Judge Harold. In the meantime, the ruling should prove tremendously valuable to those looking to defend themselves against the RIAA or other threatening parties. Texas lawyer Robert Cashman, who has represented several individuals in scuffles regarding IP-related copyright claims, blogs, "We may have just seen the order that may end all future John Doe lawsuits." Recent legal decisions have also cast doubt on entertainment industry organizations' claims that "making available" equated to file-sharing. [/release] [url=http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=21542]Source[/url]

Does that mean that all the emails Qwest keeps sending me about DMCA notifications are finally ignorable? Out of all the shit I [b]HAVE[/b] downloaded, not one of them was on the notification, it was all random bullshit that I hadn't even heard of.

[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;29626962]Does that mean that all the emails Qwest keeps sending me about DMCA notifications are finally ignorable? Out of all the shit I [b]HAVE[/b] downloaded, not one of them was on the notification, it was all random bullshit that I hadn't even heard of.[/QUOTE] I used to torrent tons of shit on my Qwest internet, they never acted like cunts about it... What happened?

I like to change my IP often. It makes for interesting situations.

Hopefully someone will bring the matter to the supreme court and it can be adjudicated on once and for all.

You'd have to be [I]special[/I] to think IP-address = one exact individual

Let's hope this gets somewhere good.

Don't get too Excited, higher courts usually shit all over the shining beacon that is the Central District Court of Illinois I want my fucking right to purchasing brand new out-of-the-box machine guns back :argh:

[QUOTE=Broseph_;29628339]Don't get too Excited, higher courts usually shit all over the shining beacon that is the Central District Court of Illinois I want my fucking right to purchasing brand new out-of-the-box machine guns back :argh:[/QUOTE] Why do you need machine guns :v:?

[QUOTE=Swilly;29628355]Why do you need machine guns :v:?[/QUOTE] Pistols can't shoot fast enough.

The MAFIAA is going to be so fucking pissed about this after ISPs put NAT behind NAT because they can't be arsed to transition over to IPv6.

Wait, it took them how long?

[QUOTE=Van-man;29628785]Pistols can't shoot fast enough.[/QUOTE] Submachineguns? The MP7 is supposed to be a mix of an Assault rifle and SMG sooooo.

MP7's PDW. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] Well, a PDW and an SMG.

That's how it was described in the brochure I got :saddowns: It had something along the lines of , "An assault rifle in the frame of an SMG, the PDW."

Fucking finally, hope this spreads and gets to the supreme court, it's a big "fuck you" to the RIAA. This is the very reason why trying to catch and sue pirates is stupid, you can never be sure it was the person you think it was unless you actually look into their PC, for that you need a warrant which I'm sure the RIAA would have a hard time getting, specially if this got passed by the supreme court.

Quite easy to just start tracing via MAC addresses, unique to everyone so no way to blag your way out of it.

What about MAC spoofing?

[QUOTE=Swilly;29628355]Why do you need machine guns :v:?[/QUOTE] Maybe he doesn't need it, but would like the right to buy one. Kind of like how when we all turn 18 we all go out and buy a pack of cigarettes.

[QUOTE=imadaman;29629864]What about MAC spoofing?[/QUOTE] only criminals use mac spoofing

[QUOTE=Alex_DeLarge;29627015]I used to torrent tons of shit on my Qwest internet, they never acted like cunts about it... What happened?[/QUOTE] They put a block on our Internet until I call and go down the list of shit they say I downloaded telling them I deleted it and that's it. They're threatening to terminate service because we got two warnings even though the second list had nothing that I had downloaded and qwest confirmed an additional computer was on the network when it wasn't password protected

[QUOTE=Van-man;29627151]You'd have to be [I]special[/I] to think IP-address = one exact individual[/QUOTE] Or, watch too much CSI.

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;29630964]only criminals use mac spoofing[/QUOTE] Or a PC that uses a MAC filtered port broke and you need access to that port :downs:

fucking finally

[QUOTE=Nerts;29632200]Or a PC that uses a MAC filtered port broke and you need access to that port :downs:[/QUOTE] But routers spoof their mac too. And how can they know since the only thing shown is one mac address, you still can't see macs of local computers, so if someone else connected to your wifi, outsiders still can't see his mac.

[QUOTE=sam.clarke;29629834]Quite easy to just start tracing via MAC addresses, unique to everyone so no way to blag your way out of it.[/QUOTE] IP addresses are assigned by your ISP. They know that the address they assigned goes to the place they assigned it. A MAC address is assigned by the device. It can be changed manually very easily. [QUOTE=Uber|nooB;29630964]only criminals use mac spoofing[/QUOTE] lmao what no I regularly change the MAC addresses of my devices to get around internet blocks at university. Apparently having more than 20 connections open makes you a virus ridden fuckwit.

[QUOTE=Catdaemon;29632991] lmao what no I regularly change the MAC addresses of my devices to get around internet blocks at university. Apparently having more than 20 connections open makes you a virus ridden fuckwit.[/QUOTE] u got trollolold son sit down

Now the government will support the IPv6 transition so everyone can be issued their own personal IP range.

[QUOTE=Nerts;29632200]Or a PC that uses a MAC filtered port broke and you need access to that port :downs:[/QUOTE] stuff like that doesn't just "break"

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;29633243]stuff like that doesn't just "break"[/QUOTE] That attitude causes huge disasters.