Judge: IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Movie Pirate

[shamu726]

The filmmakers behind the action movie "Manny" have filed hundreds of lawsuits against BitTorrent pirates this year, but not all have been successful. In a prominent ruling Florida District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro refused to issue a subpoena, arguing that IP-address evidence is not enough to show who has downloaded a pirated movie.

While relatively underreported, many U.S. district courts are still swamped with lawsuits against alleged film pirates.

One of the newcomers this year are the makers of the action movie Manny. Over the past few months “Manny Film” has filed 215 lawsuits across several districts.

Like all copyright holders, the makers of the film rely on IP-addresses as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena, forcing Internet providers to hand over the personal details of the associated account holders.

In most cases the courts sign off on these requests, but in Florida this isn’t as straightforward.

When District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro was assigned a Manny Film case she asked the company to explain how an IP-address can pinpoint the actual person who downloaded a pirated film. In addition, she asked them to show that geolocation tools are good enough to prove that the alleged pirate resides in the Court’s district.

In a detailed reply the filmmakers argued that IP-addresses can identify the defendant and that a refusal to grant a subpoena would set a “dangerous precedent.” Manny Film further stated that “all other courts” disagreed with the notion that an IP-address is not a person.

This last remark didn’t go down well with Judge Ungaro. In an order handed down this week she cites various cases where courts ruled that IP-addresses don’t always identify the alleged offenders.

“Due to the risk of ‘false positives,’ an allegation that an IP address is registered to an individual is not sufficient in and of itself to support a claim that the individual is guilty of infringement,” wrote the Judge citing a 2012 case, one of many examples.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/261439695/Torrentfreak-Manny-Ruling-Ip-Address

The referenced cases clearly refute Manny Film’s claim that all other courts disagreed with the Judge Ungaro’s concerns, and the Judge is not convinced by any of the other arguments either.

“As in those cases, Plaintiff here fails to show how geolocation software can establish the identity of the Defendant. Specifically, there is nothing linking the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing the copy righted material and nothing establishing that the person actually lives in this district,” Judge Ungaro writes.

“Even if this IP address is located within a residence, geolocation software cannot identify who have access to that residence’s computer and who would actually be using it to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright,” she adds.

As a result, the Court refused to issue a subpoena and dismissed the case against IP-address 66.229.140.101 for improper venue.

While not all judges may come to the same conclusion, the order makes it harder for rightholders to play their “copyright troll” scheme in the Southern District of Florida. At the same time, it provides future defendants with a good overview to fight similar claims elsewhere.

Source: TorrentFreak

[Cerberus]

All you have to do is remove your wep key encryption then no court can hold "You" as the downloader because it is a open network connection where anyone who drives by could have downloaded it. ;)

[948bennett]

All you have to do is remove your wep key encryption then no court can hold "You" as the downloader because it is a open network connection where anyone who drives by could have downloaded it. ;)

would doing this be putting your network at risk from any outside user?

[Cerberus]

Yes, if not password protected but if you have been warned before and you continue to download, does it matter if you are in jail? It was just a obvious option that could be used is all. I keep nothing on my machine...all ext backup. I do this on purpose so if my machine ever does get hacked, there is nothing to steal. lol I don't download movies or music anyways. Streaming only here which means only a certain amt downloaded at a time to watch then buffer is refilled again. I could download but don't see a need for it. I only watch a movie once or twice and that is all. Why save it? lol

Note: You can see if someone gets added to your network but if you have a network password (not the wep key), you are somewhat safe. If a hacker wants to hack you, you will be hacked regardless. This is a known fact. ;)

If we are just taking about your neighbor tagging on to your interenet, this is not big concern for the home user. You could limit their speed to a crawl and make it useless.

[Karlston]

Hallelujah! This is what will, sooner or later, put down the new Aussie anti-piracy laws.

I am not my phone number.

I am not my street address.

I am not my IP address.

[nonspin]

All you have to do is remove your wep key encryption then no court can hold "You" as the downloader because it is a open network connection where anyone who drives by could have downloaded it. ;)

It would be wise to read up the term "subpoena" and realise what i actually means.

If a judge issues one to an IP and its owner, they have every legal leverage to seize anything connected with it

until they are satisfied.

.. and if - for some reason - they can't pin it on a legal body, the owner of the network (YOU) will be charged to the full extent of the law.

Although i am kind of amazed how the judge used the term "downloading" a lot.

By law, downloading is not what it makes it illegal in the end - it's the uploading (redistribution) what makes it an actual crime

and therfore punishable - It all comes down to what's in the interest of the public.

Downloading and the (imaginable) damage is a civil matter and not "subpoena"-able by law - until you start selling your downloads for money.

then it becames a petty crime again - and then the public has the interest to take legal action.

[Chancer]

Seems this debate has a way to run before we get to a sensible end point. This judgement is just a staging post along the way.

[Cerberus]

If the courts are tring to nab you for a crime you didn't commit...how can they "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt it was you who did it? Worse case would be they shut your isp off so you go get another isp. They have to PROVE or have PROOF it was you or one of your machine that did it (assigned ip) in order to do anything to you personally. My friend had this happen to him and because his network was open from his isp router they couldn't prove it so they dropped the case. They did push the isp to drop him but he just went to another local isp and was back up and running. On the flip side of this coin...your neighbor could be downloading lets say child porn and then the fbi raid your house for something you didn't do...now this too would not hold up in court because there is no way of proving if it was you or your neighbor doing the crimeor even a cop sitting outside your house download it. Now you would obviously be put on a watch lists regardless but to be convicted of a crime, no. Note: This was just an example only. Everything has to be proven in a court of law. Now as far as subpoena's that is just a reason to raid your shit and try to find evidence to support that you did the crime. If no evidence found then no case. ;)

[Cerberus]

Remember there is a big difference between subpoena and convicted. ;) If the evidence is shaddy then always always go with a jury trial because they "have" to "prove" you did a crime and you alone are responsible for it. More then likely it wont even make it that far if not enough evidence.

[CODYQX4]

Sadly, sometimes it isn't if you are guilty or innocent, but if powerful forces want something from you, they will take it one way or another.

They'll appeal and appeal until they get their million dollar claim and/or bankrupt the person they sue.