Techdirt. Stories filed under "identification" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "identification"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Fri, 22 Feb 2013 03:45:02 PST Yet Another Court Says IP Addresses Are Not Enough To Positively Identify Infringers Tim Cushing http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130218/21462222020/yet-another-court-says-ip-addresses-are-not-enough-to-positively-identify-infringers.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130218/21462222020/yet-another-court-says-ip-addresses-are-not-enough-to-positively-identify-infringers.shtml
Fresh off a judicial smackdown from Judge Otis Wright, in which he singled Brett Gibbs out for possible incarceration and laid waste to the Prenda "business model" by torching its argument that an IP address alone is enough to positively identify an infringer, Prenda Law finds itself on the receiving end of another smackdown, from another California judge, for the exact same issue.
Southern District of California Judge Barry Moskowitz has found that an IP address, alone, is insufficient to support a complaint for copyright infringement. The lawsuit is AF Holdings v. Rogers (CASD 12-cv-01519) brought by the infamous Prenda Law Firm http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/category/clans/prenda/. The complaint alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and negligence...

Addressing the copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement, the judge notes that:

[...] the Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the FAC does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address 68.8.137.53. (The Court notes that it is actually unclear whether the IP address is registered to Defendant). As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity.
More and more courts are coming to this same conclusion, which doesn't bode well for those in the copyright trolling business. While they still may see some limited success collecting on threatening letters, the chances of them winning anything via the proper legal route is beginning to approach zero.

As Judge Otis Wright pointed out, Prenda's use of IP addresses to "identify" infringers boils down to nothing more than finding someone in the household that best matches its idea of who the likely infringer is, which seemed to involve nothing more than "blindly picking a male resident from the subscriber's home."

Judge Moskowitz lays it all on the line, making it perfectly clear that he won't be accepting IP addresses (alone) as evidence.
Due to the risk of “false positives,” an allegation that an IP address is registered to an individual is not sufficient in and of itself to support a claim that the individual is guilty of infringement.
Once again, Prenda's business model is getting kicked while it's down. As Wright pointed out in his order, properly identifying infringers takes both time and money, two commodities Prenda seems unwilling to part with. Moskowitz apparently won't be entertaining these dubious claims any further. He also takes aim at the same issue that resulted in a setback/smackdown for AF Holdings (friends of Prenda): so-called "negligence" on the part of the subscribers.
Plaintiff’s claim fails because there is no underlying duty. One who fails to act to protect another is generally not liable for breaching a duty unless there is a special relationship giving rise to a duty to act. [...] There is no special relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant which gives rise to a duty on the part of Defendant to ensure, through heightened security measures and hawkish monitoring of internet usage, that nobody uses his internet connection to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright.
The end result? A dismissal of Prenda's claims of copyright infringement and contributory infringement without prejudice. This leaves the door open for refiling, but considering how many doors in California are being slammed shut elsewhere by various judges, it seems unlikely that Prenda will push its luck, at least for the time being. This dismissal adds another court to the growing list of judicial entities that are unlikely to push forward on copyright infringement cases where the evidence of wrongdoing is nothing more than an IP address. How much sway this dismissal holds elsewhere remains to be seen, but it's another blow struck against the settlement letter "business model."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> time-for-some-venue-shopping,-it-would-appear http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130218/21462222020 Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:35:59 PDT Italy Is The Latest Country To Realize IP Address Alone Does Not ID File Sharers Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090615/1055035238.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090615/1055035238.shtml IP addresses alone are not enough to identify a file sharer, and even throwing out cases that don't have much more in the way of evidence. Still, in most of the various cases, it's never really about getting people to court. The industry prefers to scare people with a letter implying it has the evidence, and then getting people to pay up a "settlement fee" before they can defend themselves, because that's a lot cheaper than going to court.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> took-'em-long-enough http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090615/1055035238 Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:35:52 PDT Chinese Gov't Computer Problems May Force Chinese Citizens To Change Names Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/1903104588.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/1903104588.shtml change their names to reduce confusions and problems with matching up names to voting rolls. However, now it appears that the same thing is happening in China itself. According to the NY Times, the Chinese government is forcing people to change their names in an effort to modernize its own ID database. Apparently, the computer system being used can't handle some of the rarer Chinese characters, even though such characters are popular among some families as a way to give their children a distinct identity. It still seems in poor taste and somewhat offensive, but still somewhat fascinating to compare the two stories.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> funny-how-that-works http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090420/1903104588 Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:59:00 PDT Swedish Antipiracy Law Goes Into Effect... Internet Traffic Drops Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090401/1902564346.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090401/1902564346.shtml internet traffic took a major dip in Sweden, though it's not entirely clear if the two things are connected (though, it notes a similar dip occurred, back when The Pirate Bay was taken offline a few years ago). Not surprisingly, some audio book publishers wasted no time in trying to use the law, filing lawsuits to get information on certain file sharers. Sweden, as many of you know, has had very consumer-friendly copyright laws for quite some time. The departure from this (and the introduction of other new laws that are being pushed) has come from massive international pressure, usually starting with the American entertainment industry. It will be worth watching how the country reacts to increased and more draconian copyright rules.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> coincidence? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090401/1902564346 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:17:00 PDT Should Printer Companies Tell You Your Printer Leaves Secret Identifying Info? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080715/1947301694.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080715/1947301694.shtml it's possible that the identification dots could be used for other purposes, meaning that people who print stuff out on the assumption that the documents would be anonymous, may be wrong. Officials in the article scoff at the idea that the codes would be used for anything other than anti-counterfeiting efforts. And, indeed, it does seem unlikely that the codes could be used for very much (not only would you need to interpret them, you'd also need the means of tracking down who owns a specific printer). But there is a good point in all of this: why shouldn't the printer providers be forced to at least disclose that their printers mark every document with a unique identifier?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> disclosure-seems-appropriate http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080715/1947301694