TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Court Refuses To Allow Copyright Troll To “Ensnare” Innocent Subscribers

In another victory against copyright trolls in the United States, a court has effectively ruined an adult movie company’s chances of screwing any money out of potentially innocent Internet subscribers. The case, involving the identities of 110 alleged BitTorrent pirates, was kicked out by a judge after the plaintiff failed to explain how it would safeguard its IP address-based evidence from “ensnaring” innocent Internet subscribers.

So-called copyright troll cases in the United States, United Kingdom and Germany in particular, are causing misery for hundreds of thousands of people.

The problems are many. The cash claims from copyright holders against those they claim have unlawfully shared their content online are not only aggressive, excessive and cynical, but worse still they often target the innocent.

Copyright trolls, many of them from the adult industry, know they are targeting the subscribers of Internet connections when they seek to discover who is behind an IP address. They also know that there is a significant chance that the bill payer isn’t the actual infringer.

Sadly, they really don’t care, so with this in mind it’s always nice when a court does.

In the case of Third Degree Films v Does 1-110, the adult studio went to the District Court in New Jersey seeking discovery of the identities of 110 alleged BitTorrent pirates. As usual the company wanted the judge to order the Does’ ISPs to hand over their personal details including names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail and MAC addresses. What would follow is the usual pay-up-or-else threats.

The first problem highlighted by the judge was on the issue of joinder. Citing an “almost identical” earlier case presided over by Judge Faith S. Hochberg, Judge Mark Falk said he agreed entirely with the decision to disallow joining all alleged infringers in one lawsuit. On this basis he kicked out 109 of the 110 Does in the Third Degree complaint.

So, with just one potential defendant left, could the adult studio pull back a late win against this lone individual? In one word, no. Judge Falk, like a growing number of judges in other jurisdictions, recognized that an IP address does not identify an individual.

“Indeed, the infringer might be someone other than the subscriber; for instance, someone in the subscriber’s household, a visitor to the subscriber’s home or even someone in the vicinity that gains access to the network,” he wrote in his ruling.

Worse still, Judge Falk wrote, the weak nature of this kind of evidence has the potential to lead to the identification of a person who is entirely innocent.

“Plaintiff’s sought after discovery has the potential to ensnare numerous innocent internet users into the litigation placing a burden on them that outweighs Plaintiff’s need for discovery as framed,” the Judge wrote.

“Granting Plaintiff’s motion has the potential to permit Plaintiff to obtain detailed personal information of innocent individuals. This could subject an innocent individual to an unjustified burden.”

Recognizing that copyright trolls do face challenges when trying to identify actual infringers, Judge Falk threw Third Degree a lifeline in their attempts to properly identify the single remaining Doe.

“The Court will permit Plaintiff to submit a new motion for expedited discovery as to John Doe 1 setting forth a detailed plan that addresses the Court’s concern regarding potentially innocent individuals, as expressed in this Order,” he wrote.

In other words, if the movie studio could convince the court they were asking for the identity of the actual infringer and not just the person who pays the Internet bill, they might be successful in getting permission to extract their details from their ISP.

But it seems that was beyond Third Degree films’ abilities. The very next day they withdrew the entire case. Trolls 0, Common Sense 1.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • YouShouldGoogleLIBOR

    DIE TROLLS DIE!

    • SmokeyBandit

      The tide has turned. They say 6 strikes? I think it’s just a scare tactic. It’ll never be implemented. Never. Look how many delays already!

      • Anon

        One might say the noose is tightening and that trolls will be facing ever-increasing punishments.

        • Christopher Kidwell

          One would have to be insane or on bath salts to do that, Anon.

        • MadAsASnake

          What noose? That one made from tissue paper?

  • Anyone

    does it really matter anymore now that they got the ISP doing their job instead with six strikes?

    • Runtlin

      I don’t think the porn producers have paid into that scheme, since it doesn’t generate cash.

      • Guest

        You’re right … six strikes only involves the handful of big studios that are working with MarkMonitor. Porn will not get you strikes.

    • SmokeyBandit

      six strikes is a myth, it’ll never get off the ground. trust meh.

      • Guest

        But I want it to get off the ground so we can all enjoy watching it go down like the Hindenberg about 2 second later. God damnit.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Me too.

          The delicious irony is, pro-copyright advocates actually want the six strikes off the ground as well.

          Which to me proves that they live in a fantasy world where dogma overrides the common sense a few of them show vestiges of.

  • icec0ld

    And this is why Copyright cannot and should not be allowed to proceed in these buckshot, quick buck scams.

    Frankly, the judge should have thrown this outright. They clearly cannot and likely will not positively identify a person as an IP and this case has set a precedent that this is indeed the case

    • Guest

      One is for control where the other is for money.

    • Carlton

      Note this from the article, and pass it along to your ISP when they send you an infringement notice:

      “Indeed, the infringer might be someone other than the subscriber; for instance, someone in the subscriber’s household, a visitor to the subscriber’s home or even someone in the vicinity that gains access to the network,” he wrote in his ruling.

      • Christopher Kidwell

        That is exactly what I would do. I have my router set up for 10 connections, even though there are only 4 legit computers in my home usually, because I have relatives drop by every now and again.

        Someone could hack my network, even though it is passworded, and I could be blamed for something that I didn’t do.

    • MadAsASnake

      No, I think the judge got it right. He said come back when you can show you are accusing the right person. It’s not a high bar. In fact, if you can’t get over that bar (and few if any of these cases can) then their isn’t a case. It’s simply a measure of how deficient these cases are. Now in future, if they can work that out, they can make a case. Won’t happen. This ruling makes appeals far less likely.

  • OneEyedWillie

    Finally a judge that is not corrupt! :)

    • RIAA

      Their are no uncorrupt judges.

      Just judges that we haven’t… donated to… yet.

      Rest assured, we will move quickly to correct this oversight.

      • OneEyedWillie

        lol

    • Judge Pervert

      He’s probably been downloading porn himself. Most of these judges are perverts. LOL

  • Violated0

    Always nice to see that speculative invoicing in the United States is failing more within the Justice system as each day passes. Let them never forget though when trolls always emerge from under their bridges in future times whenever the glint of gold is to be seen.

    The first problem highlighted by the judge was on the issue of joinder. Citing an “almost identical” earlier case presided over by Judge Faith S. Hochberg, Judge Mark Falk said he agreed entirely with the decision to disallow joining all alleged infringers in one lawsuit.

    Then let us not forget that Judge Beryl A. Howell has been all too happy to join everyone together in her cases. This former RIAA lobbyist was naturally assigned this position just to play copyright hard-ball. Best she picks her cases and victories carefully in minimise such conflict.

    • Whatever

      That’s probably the reason they lost.

      The adult industry is probably not member of the MAFIAA and Hollywood doesn’t want to be associated with them. They just copy MAFIAA practices but forgot to use a bought and paid for judge. Or they were afraid of the infringment of MAFIAA style so added this error.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        “They just copy MAFIAA practices but forgot to use a bought and paid for judge.”

        Political considerations aside the fact that they couldn’t get a sympathetic judge to handle this case means that there is in US law now yet one more legal precedent that ip adress does not equal account holder.

        And in tandem to this comes that lumbering elephant-in-a-porcelain-store called “six strikes”.

        Which will test a number of ISP’s ability to set Terms of Service which the law flatly contradicts.

        This will be amusing.

  • DieTrolls

    Is this article the same case as this link below:

    http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/63947853?access_key=key-2xtdet2dtso22ocy4l

    • UraPhake

      I Would say it’s not.

      First, that case has 1449 “John Does” instead of 110.

      It is for an actual movie (called a “motion picture” in the filing) named “Weekend.”

      Here’s a link to the trailer:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULiB1V4cgfI

  • Guest

    If only the judges that are over seeing the Prenda Law copyright troll cases at the moment were to do exactly the same instead of wasting time in allowing those cases to continue.

  • http://www.facebook.com/uglygoblinboy Mehaillien Thundercross

    Us:
    1, Copyright: 0. As it should, anyone that knows me understands that
    I have contributed more than my fair share into purchasing hard-media.
    In fact, I’ve come to the point where I can barely fit another vinyl/cd/dvd/blu-ray/game in my house. Literally. I have thousands and thousands of these things purchased and stored in my home. If I like something, odds are I’ll support it financially in some form
    or another. But, if I hear or watch something that sucks, I shouldn’t
    be expected to pay for it. Also, I go to a ridiculous amount of concerts and generally pick up a healthy portion of merch, which to the best of knowledge goes right to the artist (for the most part). These are things copyright holders don’t care about, because they don’t make any more off it.

    • Roqua

      This porn guy overslept when the Internet appeared, and instead setting up 100s of servers and getting beautiful girls people will pay premiums for, they tried their old concept and failed by the dozen. Now the online porn industry is practically ruled by a handful of companies who understand how the internet works. And those print money in the billions.

  • ralph

    These John Doe cases have been going on for years even after the RIAA stopped the practice, starting the The Hurt Locker. And yet none of these trolls(Prenda Law, e.g.) is in jail despite truly outrageous behaior by plaintiff attorneys; at most they get a slap on the hand and then try another district. These cases continue to pop up and drag on in many federal districts around the country. More than anything, this points to a truly dysfunctional system of justice. Truly moronic. The judges should try talking to each other.

  • Guest

    Oh jesus christ, it’s the new even shittier Disqus again.

    Anyway, I can hardly way to hear the resident explain how this is a sweeping victory against piracy.

    • Guest

      *Anyway, I can hardly wait to hear the resident trolls explain how this is a sweeping victory against piracy.

      fuck, new disqus sucks so hard it’s actually distracting me from what I’m writing

    • ScrewEwe2

      I hate the new even shittier Disqus, again and again and again…

      • xpmule

        ya wtf lol
        i just signed up for this disqus stuff and was wondering what happened.. i thought maybe there is a setting to put things back the way they were but i didn’t find any.

        • utuxia

          i don’t see any difference.

  • Steve Smith

    “In other words, if the movie studio could convince the court they were asking for the identity of the actual infringer and not just the person
    who pays the Internet bill,”

    if they got say open wifi or someone cracked in their wifi, or if even a black market modem to use someone elses account they wouldn’t be able to provide such info.

    • MadAsASnake

      The point is that trolling for IP is a process in which the question of “who did it?” isn’t even asked. Plaintiff did not have an argument to explain why they thought those they were trying to reveal the identities of had infringed their copyright. They went to court without a case.

  • JordanKratz

    “Judge Falk, like a growing number of judges in other jurisdictions,
    recognized that an IP address does not identify an individual.”

    No shit Sherlock !!!

    • Guest

      Judge Judi finally made it to the Internet

  • anonymous

    what a shame that the UK courts are doing the exact opposite and allowing this type of thing to go ahead. and it’s not just IP address usage that has been deemed ok, even linking is worthy of a prison sentence! i’m waiting to see if there is any info released indicating which judges are affiliated in some way to the BPI etc. they have to be ‘on the take’ from either the industries or the government to come to the conclusions they are!

    • bobmail

      Actually, the UK courts wisely realized that they cannot and should not create a black hole by which everyone can slag off responsibility for their actions. They understood that the buck has to stop somewhere, it just can’t get passed of into the ether of the internet as SODDI.

      US law likely in the long run will get amended to deal with this.

      • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

        Someday you people will realize that you can’t deny people their civil rights just in the interest of propping up inferior restrictions on property rights.

        Not today, but someday. Someday.

      • Anyone

        indeed, the buck has to stop somewhere, that’s why the court tell those trolls to knock it off

      • anonymous

        ‘They understood that the buck has to stop somewhere’
        and as usual, the place it stops at is with those that are easiest to target, even when they have usually done nothing wrong, even when there has been no law to say, for example, that linking to other sites is a crime. atm, it’s individual judges that are taking their own interpretation of something and turning it into a ‘breaking of the law’ act. you even receive a longer sentence if the judge thinks you are ‘arrogant’! how ridiculous is that to allow a personal opinion of a person to influence the sentence handed out? judges are supposed to work on evidence, not on whether they like or dislike an accused. being arrogant may be annoying, but it isn’t a crime! why not have the buck stop where it should, with those that want to keep pushing the basic human trait of sharing to be the most heinous crime imaginable?

        • xpmule

          ya good point.. they go after the lowest hanging fruit. because they KNOW they don’t stand much of a chance up against someone like Google etc.

        • guest

          ” they go after the lowest hanging fruit.”

          To be more specific, they are making up fruit. They are inventing fake crimes to punish the powerless, and even punishing powerless people who haven’t committed those fake crimes, rather than addressing the powerful.

      • xpmule

        the premise a crime was committed should be established FIRST and this is not the case no matter how hard you wanna put a spin on file sharing..

        Let me put it this way for you bobmail,

        Should a group with biased financial interests working on behalf of publishers / producers / artists hire a team of lawyers to sue people such as Wikipedia ?

        They are just as guilty as The Pirate Bay or anyone else !

        Same crap different pile..

        The lawyers can sue claiming that book binders and pressmen / printers are being violated by copyright theft and that the lost wages and revenue are from the people that used to sell encyclopedia’s door to door who are now jobless and the book publishers who can’t sell their books anymore.

        According to your tired and relentless logic Wikipedia should be sued for being evil thieving pirates.

        Sorry but i think your logic behind all this copyright nonsense is nothing but bullshit and look who it’s coming from.. look who are the supporters of these lawsuits.. doesn’t seem to the people like actors or musicians.
        Rather it’s (the rhetoric and propaganda) is coming from people who have a vested financial interest in extorting money from people who almost always have no interest in receiving or giving money (aside from donations for server costs etc)
        You and your comments to me are like hearing the President of the USA explain why he should be allowed to have unlimited terms in office lol

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        “They understood that the buck has to stop somewhere, it just can’t get passed of into the ether of the internet as SODDI.”

        Ah, wonderful. If the guy doing the burglary can not be found, it becomes, by your words, a necessity to nail the guy who manufactured the screwdriver used. Fantastic.

        “US law likely in the long run will get amended to deal with this.”

        As in abolishing either messenger immunity or ensuring owning a wireless router in practice becomes illegal?

        Yea, well, bobmail…how, exactly, would you amend that law without ripping the contitution in half? For a start?

        You could, I suppose, achieve your purpose by abolishing the last twenty years of wireless technology but somehow I think that’ll be harder.

        What I’m thinking is that you either don’t know that what you suggest is flat-out impossible to implement and maintain, or you willfully ignore it in hopes that pirates will get scared.

        Feel free to use that usual batch of vitriol here which you are so quick to grasp whenever someone calls you on your BS.

      • Bobmail

        “Actually, the UK courts wisely realized that they cannot and should not
        create a black hole by which everyone can slag off responsibility for
        their actions. They understood that the buck has to stop somewhere”

        Let me clarify. What I meant to say is that it’s better to prosecute an innocent person than nobody at all.

        I also take this attitude with regard to children. I give them all time outs all the time regardless of whether they’ve done anything wrong. That way, I know none of them have gotten away with anything.

        Of course, some might argue that anything that punishes the innocent has no value as a deterrent, because you can’t avoid the punishment by complying. To that I say: Derp.

      • Guest

        bobmail? wow Anon how many aliases do you have on here?

  • http://twitter.com/MidoThePirate Ahmed Omar

    Go To Hell trolls

    • xpmule

      their already there.. (loads up uTorrent.exe)
      it must be hell for them as things are right here and now lol

  • http://thepiratebay.se/user/SCSA420 StoneCold420

    HAHAHAHAHA FUCK YOU PORNO LOSERS AT Third Degree Films and by the way your Porno SUCKS nothing but CRACK HO’s and Speed Freak Tweekers.

    • xpmule

      noted thanks lol

  • Pingback: Американски съд отрече IP адресът като доказателство при нелегално сваляне от интернет // [Gr] Educational Blog : Новини

  • bobmail

    The suggestion by the court is that the ISPs have no idea who they are providing service to, which suggests that any and all usage based billing is a failure. Since this is just not the case, one has to wonder what the heck the court is thinking.

    What the court ruling suggests is that the subscriber is not responsible for how the service is used, which is against the ToS for almost every ISP. Again, legally, the courts are either suggesting that the ToS is invalid, or that the ISPs are not in control of who they offer service to.

    This is a decision ripe for reversal, because it’s illogical. It provides every internet subscriber with a SODDI defense, removing all online responsibility for any and all acts.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gear-Mentation/100003097514663 Gear Mentation

      The nature of internet connections and wifi especially means that in fact, whatever the ToS, an ISP cannot know who is using the connection. You’d have to go to biological identifiers for every person who uses a computer, and have computers which would recognize a change of person in the middle of a session. Even that might not be enough for wifi.

    • Anyone

      so if someone steals your hammer, kills someone with it, you should be charged with murder?

      flawless logic there, as usual

      • bobmail

        Nobody is stealing anything. If you leave your loaded gun on your table in a room full of people you don’t know, and someone gets shot, then you bear some responsiblity. Same level of parallel you are trying to draw.

        If you have a phone line, you are responsible for the long distance made on it. You could claim that your wireless home phone was “hacked” but that would get laughed out. You could say “well, I leave the handset on a cord outside so anyone can use it”, and that would also not limit your liability.

        You have control of your internet connection. An open wi-fi is a choice, it’s something you choose to do with your connection under your control. The judge is totally removing all responsibility which is just not right. Thankfully, many other judges feel the other way, and so this isn’t going to be black letter law.

        • Anyone

          you are fooling yourself if you think your WiFi is secure

          anyway, in the gun example (assuming the gun is legal and whatnot) why should the owner be responsible if someone else shoots someone?

          he might be charged with negligence, but the murder charge is squarely on the person pulling the trigger

          why should the account holder be responsible if someone else commits a “crime” (I use it under quotes because it isn’t a crime in most cases)
          if the trolls can’t find the person responsible they are shit out of luck, they shouldn’t go around sueing third parties just because their evidence is unreliable

        • bobmail

          “you are fooling yourself if you think your WiFi is secure”

          You are fooling yourself to think your door lock makes your house secure, but you lock it anyway when you go out. There are no absolutes here, but an encrypted wireless system with only permitted MAC addresses, turned off when not in use would be essentially secure enough to make it irrelevant for a hacker to even both trying. It’s like a dead bolt and a chain lock to help your normal door lock. It won’t stop the determined crook, but then again, it may encourage them to do something else.

        • Guest

          So have fun when your wifi is protected, and people spoof your IP address anyway. If your wifi is protected and your IP address still gets flagged, the only explanation you could give (since you very clearly don’t believe in spoofing IP addresses) would be that you actually did infringe.

          You won’t mind that, would you? After all, your heroes need someone to blame. I’m sure you’ll be willing to be the sacrificial lamb if the situation calls for it, you being the compliant little fellatio artist that you are.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “There are no absolutes here, but an encrypted wireless system with only permitted MAC addresses, turned off when not in use would be essentially secure enough to make it irrelevant for a hacker to even both trying.”

          I can set such a system up. Few others can. You are essentially saying that 99% of the population must not own a router. Try again.

          “It’s like a dead bolt and a chain lock to help your normal door lock…”

          No, it’s not. And could you please stop trying to comment on computer security when you haven’t the faintest frigging clue how it works?

          A router encryption in the days before Reaver was a deadbolt. Today it is a very shallow speed bump.

          Since it costs no effort to execute a pre-made script, when you can push a button and gain access to every wifi in the neighborhood in five minutes time except for the one maintained by a paranoid system administrator or network tech specializing in security, your example fails on every level.

        • BuddhaFacePalmed

          Wow, really. Reading your comments is like using a time machine.

          Copyright trolls can’t find the actual “infringers”, so they go after the next best thing; the people who pay for the IP. It’s so funny how your understanding of law works.

          Your logic must also assume that the last known person to see a murder victim alive is automatically guilty of murder. Hooray, our justice system is simplified. No need for superfluous things like human rights. ALL HAIL BAGHDAD BOBMAIL

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          Can you present one…just one…that supports your stance?

          No, you can’t, because it’s a load of shit.

          No court has ever found that anyone is liable simply because another user of his or her open wifi committed some legal wrong. Every day cafes, airports, libraries, laundromats, schools and individuals operate open wifi routers, happily sharing their connection with neighbors and passers by. Sometimes people use those connections for bad acts, most of the time they don’t, the world gets a valuable public service, and the open wifi providers are not liable.

          Here’s another link, from Nicholas Ranallo, who you may recognize from this very website: http://torrentfreak.com/are-you-guilty-if-pirates-use-your-internet-lawyer-says-no-110806/

          alternately:

          http://www.ranallolawoffice.com/archives/214

          If you read either of those, you would understand that what you’re trying to imply is either contributory infringement or vicarious infringement. unfortunately, there are specific criteria to fit either of these bills

          Contributory Infringement

          1) Knowledge of the infringing activity

          2) Intent

          3) Inducing, causing, or materially contributing to the infringing conduct of another.

          …of course having an open wifi connection fails on all those. You’d have to have actual knowledge specifically of the file as it is being downloaded, you’d have to be opening your wifi with the specific intent of offering copyright infringement (instead of simply being a good neighbour) and you’d have to be telling people to use your connection for that explicit purpose. This all comes down to intent, which simply having open wifi does not go towards proving.

          The other one, Vicarious Infringement, is even worse:

          Vicarious Infringement

          1) Profit from direct infringement

          2) A right (and ability) to stop or limit the infringement

          Please note that you’d have to be guilty of BOTH to qualify for Vicarious infringement. If you’re not profiting from infringement, you’re not responsible.

          So again, your only option here is to offer up evidence that a judge has sided against open wifi and determined that such access is deliberately inducing copyright infringement. Which you can’t do.

          Or are you going to try and say that this lawyer doesn’t know anything either? If so, I’d certainly appreciate seeing your qualifications on how exactly you’re more qualified than these fine gentlemen.

        • Arkzad

          In other countries, remarkable Germany, its the opposite case. That’s the reason there is no “Free Wifi” because there is some sort of half-washed law that forces the _owner_ to take all responsibility – for example if someone starts a torrent in his coffee shop. Or your son at home. Also, most contracts with ISPs don’t allow “public sharing” with anybody (which is required to immunize the ISP for bad doing). So, in those countries, the torrent extortion system works. France had at least the decency to add a three strikes blocker ‘Hadopi’ in front of it, but it only pushed millions into 50 new file lockers. Useless.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          Yeah, Germany is a little backwards, they have the issue of reverse burden of proof, similar to the DMCA in the United States, where an accused party needs to prove their innocence, and even if they’re an 80 year old grandmother without a computer that still doesn’t seem to be enough to prove innocence, since it’s impossible to prove a negative conclusively. Complete garbage.

          The service provider’s terms of service have already been dealt with, while it may certainly be against ToS, these are not legally binding contracts (unless, of course, your name happens to be Aaron Swartz, in which case they’ll try to get you for CFAA crimes) and the most that can happen is you can have your contract terminated.

          Though in this day and age, where the 6 strike program doesn’t even go that far because of the recognized human right to internet access, and even Germany of all places, for all their reversed burden of proof, have recognized that an internet connection is indispensable for mondern life, I don’t expect an ISP would go that route either. Denying someone if their first amendment rights simply because they were being a good neighbour doesn’t seem like strong grounds.

        • Arkzad

          True, but it seems that they already learned the lesson and will not cut the line. They simply give you old modem speed which is enough to send mails and get your online banking working, but nothing less. And I understand the laws in this regard, this is not a reason to terminate your expensive high speed contract. At the end you pay for cable speed and get mobile speed.

          This is a insane mess.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          When I sign up for one thing and get another thing, I call that a bait and switch, and cancel my service. I know they can get away with it because of the caveat that they don’t ~guarantee~ you 25 Mb constant, but throttling your connection and _never_ delivering it should be a violation of your contract. Either way, that’s where capitalism should be able to enter the picture, as long as there are competitors to take your business to.

          This is not the case in the states. Since the FCC fucked up by deregulating service providers, all providers have been bought up into 6 major providers. in many areas there is _nobody_ apart from the person you’re already getting internet from.

          I’m really not too worried about it, to be honest. They keep rattling their sabres but nothing has come of it thus far, and I’m pretty sure the reason is that more and more governments and courts are acknowledging the internet as a basic human right, and throttling it is no different than cutting it off, essentially preventing a citizen from taking part in daily life. It’s the same thing as censorship, suppressing speech, which every American citizen has a constitutional right to, regardless of what voluntary agreements the providers have made.

          And they should keep that in mind, because Verizon has already been bitchslapped once for claiming that they can do whatever they want with their network since they own it, and it can happen again. That dog don’t hunt.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Germany’s “Störerhaftung”-law may in fact be violating both the German constitution and certainly violates the telekom directives issued by the EU.

          However, so far, it has not been contested in any of those arenas.

        • bobmail

          “3) Inducing, causing, or materially contributing to the infringing conduct of another.”

          Leaving a Wi-FI connection open materially contributes to the infringement if you did not do it yourself. With the WI-FI locked down (or even turned off when not in use) the infringement could have been avoided altogether.

          “2) A right (and ability) to stop or limit the infringement”

          See above. The right and the ability both exist, if the connection owner decides to take the right steps, such as limiting non-registered devices to use port 80 only, and giving them limited bandwidth to operate in.

          You can look at sites like:

          hxxp://www.mbm-law.net/newsletter-articles/wi-fi-hotspots-and-liability-concerns/1229/

          to understand that the issue isn’t cut and dry, even for a business. Even EFF’s own piece cited above makes it clear that no case has been tried:

          “Unfortunately, no judge may ever be able to rule on it. The piece sets out one reason why: if a defendant claims the alleged infringement was the result of others using his network, the copyright owner may attempt to seize all of the defendant’s computers and depose his family, friends and neighbors.”

          Essentially, the downsides of playing the SODDI card is that it creates an open invitation to go fish, and the courts may be more willing to go along with that, especially if the user says “only my son and my wife have access”. At that point, seizing computers and looking for the files in question would probably be a good way to go.

          EFF is very concerned in this area, because they call it “heavy handed” which is their way of saying that all the dipping and dodging may make it worse for you in the end.

        • anonymous

          so what would you do if a bank was robbed and the robbers couldn’t be caught, but, as luck would have it, you were just coming out of the bank when the robbers did, so the police arrested you, charged you with bank robbery, refused to listen to anything that you said, so you couldn’t prove innocence, was locked up for 25 years (which is a shorter sentence than Swartz was facing!), had your life ruined, and never recovered. you hadn’t done anything, but you were ‘the next best thing’ to catching the actual perpetrators. you could have prevented all of this by not being there or not using that bank or a hundred other hyper-pathetic reasons! you would be crying in your copyright owned mug of coffee about the injustice of it all! you would be expecting the robber to take the rap, but never mind. as long as someone is being made to pay, who cares, right?

        • jimmy671

          Good comment,you nailed bobby boys ears to the wall.

        • xpmule

          a loooong time ago my step dad was in this almost exact situation was found guilty for bank robbery and it was based on eye witness testimony from an old lady and the defense even found the guy who did it and he testified to that too.. he did a lot of years in prison for a crime he never committed and he also would have said he did it if he did.
          I had to say something about this analogy lol
          Sadly the theories about law are putting REAL innocent people in jail and it could be YOU next people.

        • xpmule

          bobmail if i leave the door unlocked while i sleep at night it does NOT make me the criminal.. that would be the person that broke into the house.

        • MadAsASnake

          And why has no case ever been tried? Should have been with the number of cases filed…

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          You know how I can tell you’re a paid corporate shill? Because you do the exact same thing they do, which is pick and choose bits and pieces that might, all together, give your argument some semblance of sense, but when taken on the whole, in the context in which they were intended, are clearly the opposite. They did it with the UN Declaration, they did it with that speech about how our forefathers were somehow in favour of equating copyright with property rights, and you’re doing it here. Asshole.

          Leaving a Wi-FI connection open materially contributes to the infringement if you did not do it yourself. With the WI-FI locked down (or even turned off when not in use) the infringement could have been avoided altogether.

          No, that’s complete bullshit. If you had actually read the links I gave, you’d see that

          The 9th Circuit had a chance to revisit the issue of contributory infringement in the wake of the USSC ruling in Grokster, described above, and elaborated further on the requirements for contributory infringement in the digital realm in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F. 3d 1146(9th Circuit, 2007). Perfect 10 held that:

          “a computer system operator can be held contributorily liable if it ‘has actual knowledge that specific infringing material is available using its system and can “take simple measures to prevent further damage’ to copyrighted works, yet continues to provide access to infringing works.” (at 1172- internal citations omitted).

          This is what I already advised above, when I said “You’d have to have actual knowledge specifically of the file as it is being downloaded, you’d have to be opening your wifi with the specific intent of offering copyright infringement (instead of simply being a good neighbour) and you’d have to be telling people to use your connection for that explicit purpose.” but of course somehow you missed that, having deliberately taken the quote out of context.

          Then you did it again:

          “2) A right (and ability) to stop or limit the infringement”

          See above. The right and the ability both exist, if the connection owner decides to take the right steps, such as limiting non-registered devices to use port 80 only, and giving them limited bandwidth to operate in.

          And, as was stated at the time, for Vicarious Infringement, you’d have to be guilty of BOTH.

          “1) Profit from direct infringement

          2) A right (and ability) to stop or limit the infringement

          Please note that you’d have to be guilty of BOTH to qualify for Vicarious infringement. If you’re not profiting from infringement, you’re not responsible.”

          what colour are your eyes? brown? because you’re full of shit. Again, taking it out of context, knowing full well that you’re lying straight out. fuckhead.

          You can look at sites like:

          hxxp://www.mbm-law.net/newslet…

          to understand that the issue isn’t cut and dry, even for a business.

          not with hxxp I can’t.

          Even EFF’s own piece cited above makes it clear that no case has been tried:

          “Unfortunately, no judge may ever be able to rule on it. The piece sets out one reason why: if a defendant claims the alleged infringement was the result of others using his network, the copyright owner may attempt to seize all of the defendant’s computers and depose his family, friends and neighbors.”

          Whee!! more bullshit out of context misrepresenting!! They were speaking, in that paragraph, of Marc Randazza’s argument that one could be liable through negligence because of a 1932 case about boats. They go on to tear this premise apart, since it’s based around tort law, instead of copyright negligence, which does not exist. The tort law argument is used to dodge aroud that inconvenient little fact. They go on to state why this does not work, saying Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act offers broad immunity from tort claims (including negligence) to providers of “interactive computer services” for claims arising from the activities of their users. The statute’s broad definition of interactive computer service includes “specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet. Now then, comes your quote that you pulled, and let’s take that entire quote, in full context:

          “We would be shocked if any federal judge affirmed this negligence theory, and, even if a trial court judge did make the error, it would surely be corrected on appeal.

          Unfortunately, no judge may ever be able to rule on it. The piece sets out one reason why: if a defendant claims the alleged infringement was the result of others using his network, the copyright owner may attempt to seize all of the defendant’s computers and depose his family, friends and neighbors. (Indeed, Randazza ominously touts avoidance of these heavy-handed tactics as a “benefit” of accepting his odd legal theory.) Query whether these tactics would be legally proper, for a host of reasons that go beyond this particular post, but for many open-wifi network operators, the expense and hassle of mounting a perfectly valid defense will not be worth the candle.”

          In other words, not only would they not have entitlement to seize your assets to prove negligence, since Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act offers broad immunity from tort claims, and it violates one’s personal and civil rights to even attempt such a thing, but beyond all that, a judge would never see such a defense, because someone simply operating an open wifi connection would never have the funds to see it to court.

          I love context, it’s a beautifu thing, you useless fucking tool.

          Essentially, the downsides of playing the SODDI card is that it creates an open invitation to go fish, and the courts may be more willing to go along with that, especially if the user says “only my son and my wife have access”. At that point, seizing computers and looking for the files in question would probably be a good way to go.

          Stop fucking lying. Show me how, ever, that this creative legal strategy has ever gone forward. Go find me a case that Marc Randazza himself has taken, using this defense, and I’ll immediately back down, because I’ll be wrong. But I’m not, and you’re full of shit. now fuck off, I’m done with you.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Perfect.

          I’ve been suspecting for some time now that bobmail is, much like Nejtillpirater, willing to go to any lengths to lie about why filesharers will be punished and all they do is illegal.

          Because it’s the one last hope the copyright industry has to survive. It’s getting harder and harder to get a sympathetic ear anywhere and now even the lawyers they thought they’d bought are turning against them.

          SOPA and PIPA’s failure to go through shook them hard. ACTA’s failure even more so. Everything they are trying is turning to pure crap and even they themselves don’t believe in the six strikes.

          That’s not really a problem for Hollywood. But it certainly is for every grubby little parasite who found a cozy little niche in trying to capitalize of the copyright conflict. When the censure against noncommercial filesharing finally falls, 999 out of a thousand lawyers specialized in IP are out of a job and that business disappears.

          And then enter the astroturfers, frantically trying to keep the dog-and-pony show running just for one more year…

        • xpmule

          well said !

        • xpmule

          so if i have my car stolen and there is a hit and run with it we all know the owner will not be responsible but what your saying i think is that if i left my car door unlocked then i should be the one being charged for a crime and not the person who did the hit and run.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “You have control of your internet connection.”

          No. You do not.

          “An open wi-fi is a choice…”

          No, it is not. You having an open wifi is the choice of anyone within 50 meters who has heard of the reaver hack or watched a five-minute youtube video on how easily to hack some 90% of commercially available routers.

          “…it’s something you choose to do with your connection under your control.”

          The key word being “control”. Very few parents today have ANY control over what their children or their friends do with your connection. Or their neighbor.

          End of story.

          Add to that you forget that the minimum achievable flaw ratio in ip adressing is 12-13%. So out of every ten accused, at least one will invariably be innocent.

          This is not the case in your far-fetched and very poor comparison of who pays the costs for long-distance.

          “Thankfully, many other judges feel the other way, and so this isn’t going to be black letter law.”

          What was the expression you used? “Lying sack of shit!”?

          Because that’s what you do. US judges are so far unanimous in their condemnation of ip-based mass lawsuits. There is ample precedence and so this is indeed black-letter law.

          Not only do you not have a frigging clue as to how your constitution works – you are rampagingly ignorant of how your legal system works as well.

        • Pelham123

          “Nobody is stealing anything. If you leave your loaded gun on your table in a room full of people you don’t know, and someone gets shot” then the shooter stole your gun.

          I never thought you of all people would argue that taking something that doesn’t belong to you isn’t theft.

          Taking something that is just lying around will get your arrested in NYC. it’s a common sting.

          As opposed to making your own copy of somebody’s else property with their permission, which is such a serious problem, we should punish the innocent along with the guilty, just to be sure nobody gets away with something.

    • Guest

      Because all plaintiffs’ IP address detection tech is flawless, right? Never mind that one of your heroes has already admitted a 30% error rate. Or do you think that they don’t end up suing dead grandmothers and laser printers, Baghdad bobmail?

      Aw, don’t be sad. Andrew Crossley was participating fully within the boundaries of the law, wasn’t he? I’m sure Robert King will reward you on your face for being such a compliant little cocksucker.

    • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

      bingo. it does. And we are.

      Actually, I maintain that any internet subscriber that opens up his wifi is protected under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA as a “communications provider”. Though it hasn’t been tested it seems legally sound. they just have to ensure that when someone sends them a DMCA complaint that they make sure there is no traffic for that content on their network any longer.

      • bobmail

        Actually, that legal argument doesn’t hold water, because an open wi-fi does not constitute a communications business, nor is it generally permitted under ISP ToS to share your connection in a commercial manner.

        If that would be your best legal argument, I would say you would fail.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          It would appear that the Electronic Frontier Foundation would disagree with you…

          https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/open-wifi-and-copyright-liability-setting-record

          the operators of an open wifi network are a mere conduit for the communications of others, and often enjoy statutory immunities. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, there is a safe harbor for service providers who offer “the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.” That definition fits a provider of free public wifi as easily as a traditional DSL provider. Therefore, the open wifi operator may be able to claim the “safe harbor” protection from copyright liability offered by Section 512(a). There are certain prerequisites for this protection, but they are not difficult to meet.

          There’s nothing in the DMCA requiring one to be a communications business.

          As far as ToS go, they’re not legally binding. All that can happen on that front is an ISP can terminate your service, and there are legal arguments presented by Marvin Ammori that private businesses cannot necessarily terminate users’ service for something like this, given that internet access is a recognized human right, and in fact the right to freedom of speech trumps the private property rights of a business, as those are doled out on a state level, whereas 1st Amendment rights are constitutional, and handled on a federal level.

          Wanna try again?

        • bobmail

          EFF argues all sorts of things in court, and loses often enough. It;’s their opinion, not fact.

          Would you like to try facts for a change?

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          If that’s your best argument that’s pretty sad. I’m open to alternate viewpoints, but you haven’t presented any.

          I’ve presented examples that show that an open wifi connection is a valid option, certainly there’s nothing illegal about it, and in fact there’s very little that can be done about it, and you have no comeback. That’s pretty weak tea, bobby boy.

          In fact about the only argument you could come up with would be for it to be a violation of the CFAA to violate your service provider’s ToS. And I think we can all agree, DoJ included, that that’s a huge pile of bullshit.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “facts”?

          This coming from someone who’s been lying through his teeth about what the law says, can’t grasp that law supercedes a ToS, doesn’t appear to know what a “legal precedent” is, how “messenger immunity” is understood to function, and can not understand the concept of “burden of proof”?

          We’d love to see you place facts on the table, bobmail. regale us with some…for once.

        • MadAsASnake

          … and as we see time and time again, the ToS are NOT the business of third parties. It’s the same BS argument that DoJ tried with Megaupload users. DoJ is not party to that agreement and cannot invoke its terms.

        • Christopher Kidwell

          Actually, bobmail, that legal argument does hold water. Most people are allowed by ISP ToS’s to share with other people near or in their homes.

          It is you who is failing to realize that the legal avenues for finding ‘infringers’ are closing, as we get sane decisions from judges, encryption is becoming the word of the day, etc.

    • MadAsASnake

      Let us forget for a moment that the ToS are no business at all of other parties, you seem to have missed the point. Plaintiff has to show cause (ie reasonable cause that the account holder performed the action). What the judge has said is plainly true. There is no particular reason to believe the account holder is the infringer: he is neither liable for civil damages, nor is he in breach of ToS, as it happens if he s not. They have to accuse the right person, and that cannot be obtained from IP alone.

    • jimmy671

      “”It provides every internet subscriber with a SODDI defense, removing all online responsibility for any and all acts.”"

      Yes bob,and you will not be needed to troll TF any more.

    • xpmule

      It’s how the tech works..
      further more if you think about a phone company, does the bill payer get forced to deal with all responsibilities regardless of who uses their phone and for what ? No. Plenty of people have their kids $1,000 dollar phone sex bill removed. And what if i spoof my phone ? I can and have.. i changed the meid in my phone to another one registered on another phone i have running on another provider and i had some friends call me and send txt messages to me while i stood there and said watch this ;)
      Both phone rang at the same time and both received the text messages.
      When your dealing with technology now a days you HAVE to make sure someone is guilty BEFORE ruining their lives. People don’t deserve to go to jail because of open wifi or whatever..

    • Guest

      @bobmail

      ISPs know who the account holder is but they have no idea who is using the account holder’s connection at any given moment.

      You cannot seriously be so fucking stupid that you cannot understand that, can you?

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        “You cannot seriously be so fucking stupid that you cannot understand that, can you?”

        Either he doesn’t understand it in which case he is indeed so fucking stupid. See his previous commentary – any of it, more or less.

        Or he does, and doesn’t care in which case he’s just a dishonest bastard refusing to openly admit he doesn’t give a rat’s ass how many innocent get accused as long as filesharers get caught.

        By definition the latter is called a “fascist”. “Baghdad Bob”-Anon admitted to the latter and has to be acknowledged the balls for that.

        Bobmail is either clueless – willfully so – or lacks even the balls shown by Anon.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      “The suggestion by the court is that the ISPs have no idea who they are providing service to…”

      They don’t, they just know who pays the bills. They have no idea who actually uses the bandwidth.

      “…which suggests that any and all usage based billing is a failure.”

      Obviously not. They know who pays the bills. That person obviously has no clue and never can know, who actually downloaded what.

      “What the court ruling suggests is that the subscriber is not responsible for how the service is used…”

      Precisely. Just as identifying who drove a bus should not mean the driver is to be held responsible for the actions of any of the passengers on that bus.

      “…which is against the ToS for almost every ISP.”

      Are you truly such a blistering moron that you do not know the difference between a ToS and Law?!

      “Again, legally, the courts are either suggesting that the ToS is invalid…”

      The courts have already ruled, many times over, that ToS are invalid when they violate consumer protection law. This should not be news as it has been extensively tested, to say the least.

      “…or that the ISPs are not in control of who they offer service to.”

      Ahh, is that enlightenment beginning to spark somewhere in those murky clouds of denial you bury yourself in?

      That is precisely what the court is saying.

      “This is a decision ripe for reversal…”

      Every US judge to have been given a case such as this has decided not to reverse it. For good and valid reason. You are here going down “Baghdad Bob”‘s path into la-la land again.

      “…because it’s illogical. It provides every internet subscriber with a SODDI defense, removing all online responsibility for any and all acts.”

      The alternative of which is to abolish the concept called “burden of proof”. There have always been laws which proved effectively impossible to enforce because the law will always assume innocence before proven beyond reasonable doubt.

      IP-adressing as a point of proof has been conclusively shown to even to approach proof. Or are you saying laser printers can suddenly download movies?

      Seriously, I would have expected “Baghdad Bob”-Anon, in his wilder moments, to come up with such a pile of dishonest attempts to declare fundamental necessities of law invalid. Did that bad man hijack the “bobmail”-nick?

    • Pelham123

      “The suggestion by the court is that the ISPs have no idea who they are providing service to, which suggests that any and all usage based billing is a failure.”

      it’s almost beautiful how perfectly wrong you got this.

      You don’t need to know who somebody is to bill their account for usage. In fact, you don’t want to know. You don’t verify that usage was done by the account holder. You just charge based on the account. That’s fine for a private contract, just not for the law.

      “What the court ruling suggests is that the subscriber is not responsible for how the service is used, which is against the ToS for almost every ISP. ”

      So what? ToS are not laws. A “no shirt no service” sign does not make it illegal to be shirtless. Failure to arrest someone for shirtlessness does not make the “no shirt” sign invalid, and failure to fine someone for infringement does not invalidate or even address ToS.

      As always, I’m impressed by the link between being worried about piracy and being foggy in general.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gear-Mentation/100003097514663 Gear Mentation

    In a murder case, you can’t be convicted on confession alone. Can you be convicted in the case of piracy? Say you were at the IP address and admit to downloading the file. You might protecting your kid, for example. How can a court convict?

    • Christopher Kidwell

      Actually, yes, you can be convicted on a confession alone, there have been numerous cases of that. Whether that should actually happen considering that the police are known to terrify people into giving false confessions is another thing we could discuss.

      • Guest

        What happens to said officers when found out? contempt of court? Blackmail charges?

  • Pingback: Court Refuses To Allow Copyright Troll To “Ensnare” Innocent Subscribers | The Illuminati

  • Daryl

    This is great news!

  • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

    Today this Judge looks at this specific set of facts and decides, to the benefit of private unknown ISP Customers, that he will not enforce disgorgement of their personally identifying information to plaintives who had failed to establish a direct link between any specific accused persons, and any specific and particular criminal act.

    This judicial Standard is a discrimination that exists to protect Innocents from overbroad and ill founded accusations; and, is a primary, rather than a secondary analysis, precisely because it is at the heart of Constitutional Priority of the Judicial protection of Innocents.

    Predictably, Copyright Holders demand that their accused be dragged into Court first; prior to the establishment of any direct link between any particular named party and any particular criminal act.

    Bad news for Copyright Holders. As cases move higher through the Appellate Courts, establishment of a direct and specific link between a specific Person and an alleged criminal act is even more likely to be found wholly their burden as accusers; and, one that must be met first.

    So, what’s the bad news for Filesharers?

    Six Strikes!!

    Strikes represents as administrative waiver of these Due Process judicial Standards by five national monopoly ISPs on behalf of every American Citizen that uses the Internet.

    Will American Citizens tolerate this?

    Will future Judges defer to the SIX STRIKES MOU?

    If they UNDERSTAND that Verizon, ComCast, et al, have actually had the Corporate BALLS to Subrogate the waiver of Due Process Standards protecting Individual Citizens? NO!

    But, supposing that American Citizens or American Judges, just can’t be made to understand that the Six Strikes MOU does exactly that: Waives the Due Process Standards that protect Individual Citizens from having the lower Courts used as an instrument of abuse against them?

    Then, how do you say, “We’re Fucked!!”, in Klingon?

    • BuddhaFacePalmed

      Hu’tegh.

      • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

        Damm!….. For real?….

        • BuddhaFacePalmed

          It’s moar “Fuck!” But we can agree that’s in the ballpark

    • xpmule

      well said.. i don’t understand why people sometimes bash on the comments here, implying they are usually from dumb people. i find they are pretty smart and thoughtful for the most part.

  • Ray Carroll

    Awesome…

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Cansteve

    What would be interesting if an under-aged kid pirated porn then they sent the kid pay up or else notice.

    • MadAsASnake

      Would be if it can be proven its a honeypot

  • Pingback: Court Refuses To Allow Copyright Troll To “Ensnare” Innocent Subscribers | Zombie Torrents - Ultimate Torrents Downloads

  • thatruth

    3rd degree makes some really good porn, its a shame they are going after ppl like this

    • xpmule

      strange comment.. who do you work for ?

  • Max

    Stupid trolls are stupid

  • VankSoop

    Its about time the kangaroo courts got it right.

    ids-Anon.tk

  • Kitlope

    Let’s hope the courts do the same here in Canada.

  • xpmule

    ya that’s like being charged for hit and run because someone stole your car and ran through the city plowing into people.. IP is not evidence !

    But i wonder if we should all just start spoofing our mac addresses randomly like once a day or something ? I know old programs exist like “smac” for windows but i wonder if there is any that will randomize it for the user ?

    And this is good story.. judges should be getting sick of frivolous crap like this being brought before them. If i was a judge i would view these cases as bad as copyright cases where people sit on copyrights to attack rich companies etc

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005069441277 Chuck N Dies Last

    Another who cares story..

  • semwem
  • Pingback: Do copyright holders profit off of their lawsuits? « Matt B

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.