AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough
Written by enigmax on October 13, 2009Day six of the copyright infringement trial between anti-piracy group AFACT and Aussie ISP iiNet. In addition to ongoing cross-examination of a DtecNet anti-piracy boss, a forensic investigator and veteran of the KaZaA case took the stand, admitting that an IP address alone is insufficient to identify an exact individual.
It’s day six in the copyright infringement case of AFACT – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three, day four and day five).
After Justice Cowdroy allowed several documents to be used in court yesterday which were used by iiNet’s legal team to cross-examine AFACT witnesses, senior counsel Tony Bannon for the movie industry said he wants to subpoena the Internet Industry Association (IIA) for documents it says relates to meetings held with ISPs in 2006/2007 on how to handle p2p copyright infringement.
The documents are required for further cross-examination of witnesses. Earlier IIA had applied to be a friend of the court, an application to which AFACT objected.
Also revealed in court today is that iiNet is on the brink of launching an online kids entertainment service. Nothing particularly unusual about that, until one learns of iiNet’s business partner – TV company Village Roadshow, one of the litigants in the case. The content will be free to view and iiNet won’t even count the bandwidth its customers use on these downloads.
AustralianIT notes that iiNet was due to announce the service in around a month’s time, but will now launch it this weekend.
A computer forensics investigator who was previously a key witness in the 2004 KaZaA trial, was called by iiNet’s legal team today. Nigel Carson, a key witness for AFACT, was questioned on whether an IP address alone is enough to identify an individual infringer.
Carson admitted that any ISP account could have multiple users in the same household and could have other unauthorized 3rd-party users if a wireless router was compromised.
He further admitted that to accurately identify a precise individual, a court order and police action could be required to interview account holders and other individuals living at the address.
The open court session was also closed for the continuing cross-examination of DtecNet’s CTO Kristian Lockegaard which began yesterday.
The case continues to the end of this week, where there will be a two week gap before the court reconvenes for a further two weeks.
Previously: Anti-Pirates Scare Kids with Propagandistic Comic Book
Next: UseNeXT Threatens Litigation Against Blogger
49 Responses
I am glad to hear this. The anti-piracy folk think they are going to make it easier to imply that an IP is enough. It is not enough. The police have to investigate this and to investigate thousands of infringements it would take a really large task force which is some thing no one really has money for.
Interesting to see Village Roadshow starting to offer free downloads for kids on iiNet and they won’t even count towards their caps…The start of the beginning of the end of the old style business models.
Nice to hear clearly in court that a simple IP address is not valid in determining identity and therefore shouldn’t be used without court order documents to properly id the person involved.
And then there is the entire issue relating to privacy laws in Australia which does not allow the ISP to pass on any details about anyone without court ordered documents, so once again the entire issues relating to IP addresses must go through the courts.
The IP address is sufficient to identify the account holder who should assume responsibility. However it’s the ISP’s aiding & abetting theft that’s at stake here, demonstrating they transferred the stolen data should be sufficient.
Isn’t it a shame that the “new business models” are so inept they require illegal activity to weaken the incumbents. I guess if you’re a poor athlete you can always ankle-tap the opposition.
McD
@4. So I guess when a car owner leaves their car locked but someone steals it and runs someone over with it, the the owner should be responsible for that?
@4
So when I drive 90 Mph in my mercedes, where I’m only allowed to do 65 Mph, then they will also punish Mercedes Benz ? for making a car that can go faster than the speed limits ?
“Nice to hear clearly in court that a simple IP address is not valid in determining identity and therefore shouldn’t be used without court order documents to properly id the person involved.”
++1
“The IP address is sufficient to identify the account holder who should assume responsibility. However it’s the ISP’s aiding & abetting theft that’s at stake here, demonstrating they transferred the stolen data should be sufficient”
Yes… Well done. It is possible to determine the account holder via their IP Address; that does not mean however that A. Their account information should be looked at without a Court Order, B. That the account holder, or more specifically, that person whose name the account is under, is responsible for what people do on their network.
People above me have demonstrated the stupidity of this claim already, but I think I’ll had one of my own for good measure:
It’s like someone buying a concert ticket for a friend, and when that friend stabs someone at the concert, blaming the person who bought their ticket… Utter bollocks.
@4
Are you a fucking idiot? Have you tried understand about networking, protocols, IP address, NAT before sprouting rubbish?
What a dumb fuck.
@6 and 8. Your examples are “utter bollocks” if you are the account holder you are responsible for what people do on your network(other than someone hacking into it) as you have to give others access, it is normally in the contract when you sign up with an ISP.
Its like your internet banking, if you give your friend access to it and they use it to launder money you are responsible
I’ll go by these rules – I wonder how many “illegal” files have been downloaded in the offices of Sony, EMI, Warner etc… Lets hang the directors out to dry!
So the account holder should be responsible ?
What if the account holder is a business owner, or the accounts payable manager for a company ?
What if I.T., Fire-walling, and routing for this said company was outsourced to another company ?
What if the above was true and employees, or even contractors were using the network for downloading copyrighted content ?
Who is responsible then ?
The business owner ?
The Accounts payable person ?
The outsourced I.T. Company ?
The Employee or contractor ?
Seriously, wake up !
Not everything is as simple as a single PC Household.
ignore those trolls like #4 they are just annoyed because some truth is starting to emerge in this case. Remember to get a VPN service and use a private tracker to ensure your privacy and human rights are maintained
Two points worth noting:
1. AFACT is using evidence from former Optus staffer Aaron Herps to prosecute iiNet. I’d argue they are not going after larger ISPs Telstra or Optus due to the legal arsenal/funding these larger players have available
2. iiNet is possibly one of the most proactive ISPs when it comes to not charging for digital content bandwidth (http://freezone.iinet.net.au/ – examples include the ABC’s iView as well as iTunes – and now possibly one of the current litigants, Village)
@ BS
You are forgetting the point that there is the entire point of innocence until proven guilty. An ISP should not be required to do anything until a court orders it to do so.
AFACT may have mentioned to iiNet that they “suspect” people are infringing copyright via their pipes, but the burden of proof is still for AFACT et al to provide proof through the courts and therefore police investigations, as iiNet is not allowed to snoop on their customers due to the privacy laws within Australia.
So no official proof via the courts and the police, then how can they actually know what their customers are doing with their connections? Should they trust some IP harvesting technology which is kept “secret” and simply accept AFACT’s word?
Sure everyone can guess and have a pretty good idea, but in a court of law (in a fair land) that sort of evidence is non binding opinion.
As for ankle tapping an athelete…well the analogy is closer to a dude on a penny fathing competing against Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France. And AFACT and the studios certainly aren’t on the latest racing bike.
And the so inept new business model you deride, is actually one from the distribution branch of the studios themselves in Australia aka Village Roadshow.
would have thought that iiNet would be less keen to join forces with Village Roadshow now, seeing as they are one of the companies that have brought the law suit. somehow doubt whether they can be trusted now. could get things up and running, then turn on iiNet, claiming damages for some other trummed up infringement.
All ISP’S reuse addresses and modems.
And all of these supposed assholes that purport to identify them are incompetent to do so.
They have accused network printers and dead people of infringement.
Jeesh!
More desperate pathetic measures by tight-ass thieves to try and get out of being caught I see.
Call the fucking whaaaambulance
If ip was enough to identify people,(supposably for punishment), then the jails & courts and whatnot would be full of ignorant people who simply bought a device & went about their merry way. A short while later, they start getting harassed & questioned for something that they know nothing about. I can hear many old timers telling their friends their stories such as these & how they got raided one day while they were having a get together.
OVIOUSLY THEY IZ EVILZ! THEY IS TEH PIRATEZ AND IS SHOULD BE LOCKED IN THE JAIL!
@9 Johnnyboy:
You actually missed the point. The key here is that “YOU” are responsible for what happens on your network. However, according to this trial going on, AFACT is claiming that “YOUR ISP” is responsible for what happens on “YOUR” network.
Therefore, Toysoldier’s example (#6) is perfectly valid. “You” would be represented by the driver while the “ISP” is the car manufacturer. The manufacturer should NOT be held responsible if a driver is speeding using one of the cars they bought from them.
The same argument was used succesfully by handgun manufacturers when some states tried to hold them responsible for people commiting crimes with handguns.
Wow what good news, you now officially cant identify a individual person from an IP, and downloads that dont count towards bandwidth caps, everywere soon?
People’s wireless connections get hacked all of the time; especially in densely populated areas.
Its not about the person downloading. AFACT is saying that since they have proof of infringment, the ISP is aiding the infringer if they don’t disconnect them.
The ISP’s contend that only a court may give the order to disconnect a user.
AFACT is basically trying to cut out the courts, and enforce the laws themselves… and by iNET’s refusal to do so, has taken them to court.
Quite ironic.
No JUstice no peace.
“Its like your internet banking, if you give your friend access to it and they use it to launder money you are responsible”
You are? In what country?
Lunaville?
Hers a question for everyone, why does torrent software have to broadcast any IP address ? Heads up on new technology for you,
It is not necessary it is just for info and does not have to be displayed , that is why new software is on it’s way soon that gives no info on the IP address just a national flag , look out for it after Christmas anonymous
Bit-torrent client it will be free.
Ps I have already said to much so don’t ask
With the IP address you can find out every thing. And according to the speed of the wind, it’s direction and how old is the captain you can find out who is uploading what and when and the mood of the up-loader and of the downloader and the weather at the time of the upload and download and when did he got to the Bathroom the last time, and his heart beat and how many hair on his head and if this is he or she and if he or she voted republican or democrat and and so forth and so forth. . . .
IP address is magic! The CIA, MI5 MI6 the DGSE are using IP adress all the time. They have terabytes of Ip addresses all arround the word. My IP Adrress that I am not using your IP adress that I am using. And I am uploading shit right now. Sorry!
“AFACT is basically trying to cut out the courts, and enforce the laws themselves… and by iNET’s refusal to do so, has taken them to court.”
Me too I enforce the law myself. I believe this is fair.
The entertainment industry is guilty and the penalty is death.
Sorry! They lost their appeal!
@ 9 and saying the account holder should be fucked by a holes.
ALOT OF people are not tech minded! I went to see a friend and guess what there was 10 Unsecured networks around the house. Too me I can down load all sorts of shit because they haven’t but a password on it.
Because I have an account doesn’t mean I should be fucked! It’s retarded and Music industry should change there ways instead of using fear and trying to control the net.
Fuck how about Stop this chasing BS and get people who Sell the fucking music. Wasting so much money on hunting down shares is guy period.
@Cygnus
This is the point Cygnus, AFACT’s proof is not proof at all, just suspicion of infringement.
Proof only comes about after due process via police investigations and court proceedings. So how could iiNet behave any other way?
Peoples connections and therefore rights cannot be terminated based upon pure suspicion and the fact one party says so.
Quite frankly I do not think that the Australian court system will tolerate another group claiming domain over legal due process and circumvent the true court system.
Not all ISP’s even know which is your IP.
On two separate occasions while on the phone to my ISP troubleshooting a packet loss issue, they ‘attempted’ to connect to my cable modem. They ‘managed’ to connect while it was unplugged. At this point I asked them to tell me what they have listed as my IP, the IP they have was wrong.
Note: My IP does not change after a power cycle.
The IP given was one I had many months ago, and evidently was now in-use by someone else.
Therefore if you receive a notice of infringement, it’s entirely possible that someone else was responsible, and your ISP’s IP logs are incorrect.
ISP: Comcast Atlanta Georgia.
I wish I lived closer to some wireless connections to leech off of.
http://bit.ly/torrentfreak
it’s sad we have to look for 3rd parties to find such obvious facts out
With the case as set out by AFACT.
It could be put forward that the companies by making the products that are downloaded are the original ones at fault. At the other end they will want to take our mothers and fathers put into court for having us the p2p users. Pandora’s Box as been open and will not be shut them. It’s time they got with the program.
Who cares if an IP is unique to a person – the question is, is iiNet aiding it’s customers in criminal activities.
Who ever uses the IP address doesn’t really matter – they’re still using iiNet’s services all the same.
Far more interesting question is – should an ISP be responsible for regulating the internet?
My opinion – hell no.
But hey, i’m not on trial :P
If the Government want to shut down P2P..I’m sure most of us who pay for more bandwidth to download pirated movies and music will simply terminate their internet contracts…Who really needs more than a simple plan..It’s about time the likes of Sony/Warner set their own ISPs in Australia sell cheap bandwidth and make a FORTUNE….
Kudos to iiNet for staying strong and standing up to AFACT! The service they’re setting up sounds great. It’s not going to be laws and penalties that stop us torrenting, it’s going to be legitimate options. Let’s be honest here- except for a very small percentage, none of us really want to break the law, it’s just that torrenting is our only (or best) option. If they give us an alternative, I’d be perfectly willing to use it! (such as Hulu- they offer good-quality shows that stream fast. Why would I bother downloading it if I can get it for better quality online?)
Boycott all Hollywood Studios !!!!
Buy used movies at your local store and support your local economy.
Stop buying brand new movies and stick it to the bigwig greedy assholes.
Code example:
http://www.prismmodelchecker.org/casestudies/dining_crypt.php
Brief discussion about it:
http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~adrian/731-sp04/readings/dcnets.html
No more IP’s W00T!
But I really would love to see an AVNET(Anonymous veto network) and not a DCNET(Dining cryptographers) LoL
Bye bye traceability LoL
No onion router needed.
@5
I would say, when the car is locked and the owner have given the key to another person, he/she would have an idea of who could have done it, which then can match the scenario in #6, where the owner (here at least) not is responsible for the action of the driver.
The scenario you describe sounds more like an unauthorized use of wireless (leaving out he could break into the home and connect a computer).
I assume that the ISP involved iiNet use phone lines to supply their service?
So is the phone company going to be held liable also?
What about the power company it’s their electricity actually doing the “crime”
Intel,AMD….actually I usually use my Sony TV on my torrent box…I think they might have to be taken to court to…
Meh…it’s all bollocks either way, I’m costing them no money, I have no money with which to purchase their products…hence they have lost nothing.
The Law of Insanity
The new law says they must take action to stop repeat infringers. So basically AFACT said okay here is a list of infringers do something! They refused, and so AFACT took them to court.
The new law says they are responsible, but if they take steps to prevent this they are forgiven.
“So I guess when a car owner leaves their car locked but someone steals it and runs someone over with it, the the owner should be responsible for that?”
While I completely agree that it is the same thing, you must understand that there is no law the provides for the owner to be responsible. With copyright there *is* law to make them responsible. In order for these analogies to be correct the government would have to pass a law to add that responsibility.
The blame here is not on iiNet, AFACT, the Courts or the People, but on the Government for creating this law.
I would like to point out that in civil cases in the U.S. it has been argued, successfully I might add, that failure to take all reasonable precautions makes you partly responsible. What this means is if you live in a bad neighborhood and you have no alarm or anti-theft device you can be responsible for that death financially. It is totally insane, but yes the nice 12 people on the jury bought the argument.
Net Neutrality is forgotten Down Under
“The content will be free to view and iiNet won’t even count the bandwidth its customers use on these downloads.”
Apparently no one seems to reads the articles that are written. It does not say “Downloads” only “free to view”, ie Streaming. Why is this free to stream? The content providers partner with iiNet to provide streaming servers located on the iiNet network so there is no expensive bandwidth.
“2. iiNet is possibly one of the most proactive ISPs when it comes to not charging for digital content bandwidth (http://freezone.iinet.net.au/ – examples include the ABC’s iView as well as iTunes – and now possibly one of the current litigants, Village)”
Again the same thing, local iTunes servers in AU, and iTunes et al probably pay iiNet for bandwidth to their customers. But this is limited if you read the freezone info. If you have naked DSL it counts towards your bandwidth, why? no juicy telephone revenue each month. If you use DNS servers other than iiNet it *may* count towards your bandwidth. Wow where is free open DNS?
iiNet is *not* altruistic by no means. Here we have a great example of a Non-Neutral Network provider. They chose based upon payment of bandwidth charges, who is free and who is not. This may seem all good and well, but what if they decide to amp up the fees or add their own content?
How is this related to Net Neutrality, Lets see. Take this example, They say to iTunes we want 30% of the sale price of the content. Apple says “No” They say okay you are no longer in our freezone. No you have a choice paying for DRM riddled content or getting Free DRM-Free content off the net, either way the usage counter runs. A small Indie label wants in, but cannot afford to pay, tough for them! Or what about this one. You have a network that is a streaming partner that streams movies via the freezone. They decide hey we are going to license the movies directly from the studios or content owners and block out the this network since we are not making enough money from them. Now they pick the movies they have up there based upon what they can make off it (Ie Cheapest content for highest $$ return) vs a network that showed what you wanted to see which now has the bandwidth counter going.
In the end they control what is free and what is not based upon how much cash they get from it. That does not sound “Neutral” to me. Now companies deserve to be paid for the bandwidth that people use but history with big companies greed shows they will not stop once they see the $$$$$$$ start flowing in. Content Provider and Internet Service provider should be separate not the same business entity.
IMHO!
Does iiNet use DHCP? If they do then it means an IP address can jump from one household to another, making correct identification even more difficult. I know my ISP uses DHCP. Occasionally I’ll get an IP address that causes my firewall to become hammered with many incoming connections. I generally assume it’s because the previous person using the IP address in question had a P2P application running, was using something like TOR or perhaps was under some kind of denial of service attack. Thankfully I know how to force an IP address change. Most don’t though and I could easily see a person ending up in court for the online activities of someone else.
Is it the signal of the change of tides that has been in course for some time now?
Do I sense MAFIAA being pwned?
Thomas Busch is a founding member of the Youth Parliament Berlin-Reinickendorf, an insti- tution created and led by young people to promote political youth participation in local com- munities. ,
Cetera and Lamm recorded Japanese-language vocals for the song in 1971, and the version of the song with those vocals was released as a single in Japan. ,
9 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.