IP address not legal evidence identifying file sharers

mrdataNY used our news submit to tell us: "I never could see how RIAA could prove who within IP address could be proved to have done "the deed"."

For years, the RIAA has claimed that having the IP address of a computer that has shared unauthorized files is the equivalent of having the evidence of who was actually sharing files. That, of course, is false. The IP address simply can help you know who paid for the Internet access, but not who was using what computer on a network. In fact, this even had some people suggesting that, if you want to win a lawsuit from the RIAA, you"re best off opening up your WiFi network to neighbors.

It seems like this strategy might actually be working. Earlier this month, the inability to prove who actually did the file sharing caused the RIAA to drop a case in Oklahoma and now it looks like the same defense has worked in a California case as well. In both cases, though, as soon as the RIAA realized the person was using this defense, they dropped the case, rather than lose it and set a precedent showing they really don"t have the unequivocal evidence they claim they do.

Whereas it would be nice to be off the hook as they say, if the RIAA cannot simply point to the individual paying for an Internet connection, as the one responsible for all activity, I certainly would think twice before opening up my wireless network to the neighborhood.

Certainly, the case in Oklahoma against a mother, who personally did not download any files, but rather her children were file-sharing was dismissed. Or at least the RIAA was allowed to withdraw it's complaint against the mother. This was a result of the RIAA learning of the mother intention to file a summary judgment motion dismissing the case. In addition, she was going to ask for the RIAA to reimburse her for her legal fees!

These type cases are ones that indicate that at least in some situations, it is possible to fight the charges and win. It has always been quite alarming, when the RIAA has used the law to punish parents for actions taken by their minor children. Maybe we can hope to see an end of these type cases.

Discuss this in our Music Download, Peer to Peer (P2P) & Legal Issues Forum.

Source: Tech Dirt

By rla Member since: 6 Mar 2004
Reactions: 147
Forumposts: 0
Karma: 2940 , Tue 1 Aug 2006 00:05

[reply]

There are some cautions in all this that need to be considered. The RIAA members are contract experts and legal wranglers. Don't be suprised to see the organization move to attempt to require some ISPs ( those which offer online music services or use RIAA member products) to change their TOS/User Agreements to allow spying or specifically make account holders liable to the RIAA or it's members. All I can say is watch closely for any changes to account agreements. You can bet that the RIAA is working very hard to eliminate this obstacle. There is no effective nationwide presedence until a Federal Court rules on the IP issue. This has not happened yet!!!

By Zzyzxroad Member since: 12 Mar 2005
Reactions: 86
Forumposts: 63
Karma: 2350 , Tue 1 Aug 2006 08:55

[reply]

Even without an open network, there can be several users to the same computer. I know there can be things to prevent a kid from downloading songs (net nanny software, admin rights disabling download software for example) but kids are getting quite smart on the computers, and are hacking their own machines to gain access too. ( I know, my brothers kids did it to their boxes). Its shitty as a parent like some of them that did not really download, and still get sued. what can one do as a parent to prevent this?

By Saruman Member since: 19 Dec 2002
Reactions: 263
Forumposts: 247
Karma: 7730 , Tue 1 Aug 2006 13:25

[reply]

Wait a minute: "It has always been quite alarming, when the RIAA has used the law to punish parents for actions taken by their minor children." Well for most things, the parents ARE responsible for what their minor children do. That's why the children are called "minors". I'm not standing up for the RIAA or the MPAA as I believe that this should be a non-issue for them as kids do do these kinds of things (I shared all kinds of copies of computer games, cassettes and video tapes with my friends). Hower, for other criminal offenses, the parents need to be held accountable, they can't just use the excuse, "my child did it" and the child goes to juvy hall, the parents have to provide guidance or suffer consequences as well. If some parent's minor child steals a car, crashes it into someone else's car, the judges won't hold the child liable, they'll hold the parents liable. Its a minor gripe with the way you worded it. While there are some things that parents should not be held liable for, there are some things that go beyond what most would consider normal behavior and it is then that parents should be held liable.

By rla Member since: 6 Mar 2004
Reactions: 147
Forumposts: 0
Karma: 2940 , Tue 1 Aug 2006 20:30

[reply]

The issue is not about whether a parent is civily liable for the actions of their children. In many cases they are. The issues are: 1) Whether an account holder is liable for actions of those using the internet account. 2) Should the RIAA or MPAA be required to provide evidence to specifically identify the offending party and what evidence is sufficent to accomplish this identification. Whether or not the account holder is responsible will depend on the agreement the account holder has with his ISP, whether that agreement properly applies to third parties, the method by which copyright violations occur and whether a court rules on the issue (which has not happened). It is pretty clear that the industry doesn't want to risk having the court answer that question. If a court eventually rules that the account holder is not responsible then the plantifs (RIAA/MPAA) will have to establish (by a perponderance of evidence) who committed the act. A major difference between civil actions and criminal prosecutions is that in civil cases the perpondernce of evidence is sufficient. That basically means that if most evidence brings about the belief that a person did it then they can loose a suit. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard (used in criminal cases) does not apply. So, if you have a house full of kids or lots of people accessing your network you may be less likely to loose a civil action. However, if you are a single person and there is no evidence that anyone else uses your computer your chances of prevailing may be significantly deminished. Even if someday a court rules that account holders are not responsible, or that SOME account holders are not responsible, there are other issues that may come into play. The RIAA/MPAA could: 1) Influence ISPs to modify user agreements to make them more industry friendly. As we already know from the payola and influence used in the broadcast and record industries this could be a real possibility. 2) Subpeona computers and employ computer forensics in hopes of identifying who pushed the buttons. 3) Take their evidence to the authorities in hopes that an investigation is initiated. In this case the authorities could seize computers, use lab analysis and then prosecute criminally. To what ends the industry will go is still to be seen and as of yet there is not court ruling on the "account holder " issue. I doubt the RIAA and MPAA will stop looking for legal strategies that enhance their ability to sue.

By LadyMatika Member since: 25 Sep 2005
Reactions: 5
Forumposts: 1
Karma: 110 , Wed 2 Aug 2006 02:41

[reply]

a while back ago they tried to take a child from her mother so they could punish the child for file sharing but the courts would not permit it , they tried to make it so that the parents of the child was neglecting the child so they tried to have him or her taken from his or her parents , but the courts saw right threw their little plan and stopped them dead in their tracks , because a welfare person went and saw exactly how the parents were treating the child what he or she was allowed to do and how he or she was being teated and said to the courts looking right at the faces of the riaa idiots and said this child isn't too be taken away from his or her parents because they have done nothing and is doing nothing wrong there for child welfare is not complying with the tatics of the riaa and their lawyers .

Top news

Top reaction posters

Forum threads

Our Community messages