Will ISP Six Strikes Include BitTorrent Lawsuits? → Using IP address legal & practical

quote:

---

the plan has numerous problems, like relying on the IP address as proof of guilt

---

I always laugh when I see this lame argument trotted out as a reason to not punish someone for piracy. The IP addr can be traced back to the lessee of the internet connection. And it is settled law in many cases(especially civil law cases) that the owner/lessee can be liable for and punished for actions taken by others using the property for which they are responsible.

Of course, those favorable to piracy love to roll out the fact that in a household of more than 1 person, it can't be 100% provable as to which person committed the offense. But this isn't a criminal law case where the burden of proof is to identify the perpetrator. All that has to be proved is that the person responsible for the connection didn't do due diligence in preventing the connection from being used illegally. Those who love piracy don't like that and try to apply criminal law principles to a civil law process. Good luck with that defense - it will never fly.

You mean like how the US government is applying criminal law principles to a civil law process?

Oh, right.... I guess Megaupload doesn't exist.

Yes, but define due diligence. Suppose I share an apartment with a roommate, and I pay for the Internet connection. So, what should I do to prevent him or her from downloading? I can certainly password-protect my computer, but what am I supposed to do about theirs? I really can't do anything about it, in fact.

And there have been cases where someone simply erred with the IP address. Back when the RIAA lawsuits started, a buddy of mine told me about an elderly couple (I think they were in his church) who got a threatening letter demanding they settle or face a lawsuit. They had never downloaded anything, nor did they have anyone else coming into their house who would have downloaded anything. Basically, someone somewhere screwed up. It was either the RIAA sending the ISP an incorrect IP, or someone at the ISP pulled the wrong customer record. These people were terrified, and they ended up getting a lawyer to fire back a nasty response. Luckily for them, the RIAA didn't pursue it, but what if they had? Let's suppose that someone at the RIAA entered the wrong IP early on in the process. The ISP would confirm that, yes, that's the IP that they were asked for info about, so that was the correct customer info. And what if the RIAA or the company who they contracted with said that, yes, that was the IP they were interested in, since they wouldn't necessarily be aware that a keystroke error had been made? How do you defend yourself against that? You can't say that you never downloaded the file, offering up your computer as proof, since the RIAA will simply say that you deleted the file. You'd have to have forensic analysis done on your drive to show that the file was never there in the first place, and God help you if it looks like you reformatted after the date the file was allegedly downloaded, since the lawyers would then say you probably did it to destroy evidence. In short, you're screwed.

So if someone hacks your WiFi and downloads music and movies, you're responsible?

Plus, when did it become against the rules to share your WiFi connection? I guess all those times my parents told me to share something with other children, they should have been telling me to push them away and scream "MINE!". After all, by sharing my toys, the toy companies were losing out on sales from the other parents, right?

Also, where is the independent review of the information collection methods to ensure that they're accurate? Give me an IP address and I can create a fake screenshot, which will be 100% indistinguishable from the real thing, showing that address downloading anything you can name.

So if somebody takes their laptop to Starbucks and uses the wifi there to download a movie, are you saying that Starbucks should be held liable for copyright infringement and can be sued, because they didn't do their "due diligence" to prevent such infringement?

And what exactly is due diligence? Putting a password on the access point? Is WEP okay, or does it have to be WPA, or WPA2? What if Starbucks is using WEP and somebody cracks it and downloads a movie, was that not due diligence? What else is required? A router capable of DPI to ensure that there are no infringement sessions taking place? Do they have to block known pirate sites?

Sure you can. The connection is in your name. If the roommate won't stop pirating material, you disconnect his/her computer and if they won't follow the rules, you turn them in to the RIAA and stop being their roommate.

but there has been time where the got the IP linked to wrong person

Some very small %. So life isn't fair. Deal with it.

Easy to say until you're the one affected by such a mistake. And remember, we aren't talking about pocket change here; people are getting sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, which doesn't even include the bill for the lawyers hired to defend you. And I've worked for an organization that got sued (a case not related to file sharing). I wasn't involved in the process, but I knew that it was totally frivolous and had no chance of success, but the organization ultimately settled, not because they thought they'd lose but because the lawyers' fees would have been more costly than a settlement. It had nothing to do with who was right; it was a decision based on what would ultimately cost less money.

So, if you're willing to accept the possibility of these mistakes, then let me know how you feel about it if you should ever get sued. Then you can decide if you want to spend several thousand dollars to defend yourself, with the chance of losing much more, or if you decide to simply settle, even though you know you didn't do anything wrong.

The 6 strikes process this whole thread is about isn't about lawsuits. It is about several warnings and possibly curtailed service and maybe at the end a disconnection. I don't think the IP ID process has to be like a capital murder trial, though that is what pirates want it to be.

That's fine if you know they're doing it, but what if you don't know? I have no reason to believe my wife is pirating music or movies, but I don't check her computer to make sure she isn't. So, unless your roommate tells you what they're doing, how would you know? Remember, there is no requirement that the RIAA, MPAA, or any other organization give you a heads-up before they sue you. At that point, it's a little late to do anything about it.

No it isn't like a capital murder trial, but you have to consider three things here. First, there is no requirement that an ISP participates in this program, so, even if the RIAA and MPAA say they won't sue anyone until their six strikes are up, such a promise wouldn't cover anyone using a non-participating ISP. Second, such a promise not to sue is just that: a promise. It carries no legal weight, so these organizations could sue at any time if they felt justified in doing so. Third, there are many, many individuals and companies that hold copyrights, and they aren't obligated in any way to participate in this program.

So, in reality, you have no real protection here. The most you have is a promise that only the copyright holders signed on to this program won't sue the customer of a participating ISP; a promise that isn't worth a thing if it isn't honored.

Or maybe they have to get your laptop's MAC address and a photo ID from you, then link that record with a record of your session so that, if anyone downloads copyrighted material, they can check the IP against the MAC, then look to see whose ID is on file with that MAC attached.

And all that effort can be undone by someone with a fake ID or an employee who accidentally or deliberately enters the information incorrectly.

Can you imagine the influx of calls that these ISPs are going to receive even if piracy was so rampant? This is not going to fix anything: it's only going to cause MORE problems like increased costs to ISPs, unless I'm missing something here.

And with all due respect, I thought you were against government intervention of any kind?

If that were the case every library, starbucks, and university across the country would have to close their wifi.

Simply providing someone access to the internet is not a crime. If someone drives your car and wrecks it, do you get the ticket? No.

Mac addresses can and do get repeated.

Furthermore, changing your mac address is trivial.

Where did you get the mistaken idea? There is a place for laws. I am just against government handing out money to society's drones.

No they wouldn't. Those you just listed(except maybe a coffee shop) have filters that prevent most infringing activities.

Sounds like the republican mantra!

Ahem, isn't that what will be happening indirectly with the entertainment industry? Using government laws to make sure someone's business model doesn't fail seems to be the scenario here. Let the free market work it out.

He's only against government intervention when it interferes with big business.

Not a single one listed has ever blocked me from using Bit torrent.

In fact they are my places of choice to pirate anonymously.

Government intervention should be rare and occur primarily to combat fraud and abuse. Whether it benefits or interferes with big or small business should be irrelevant. I think a lot of current regulations are made specifically to target big business (sometimes correctly, sometimes not), and small businesses suffer greatly in the crossfire.

Example?