Live data from Hacker News

Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

torrentfreak.com

31–40 of 104 posts

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#31

Am I correct in thinking that in the UK, the internet subscriber is responsible for what is downloaded/uploaded on their connection, regardless of whether they actually did it?

Contractually there may be a duty to ensure your connection is not utilised to nefarious ends. This contractual duty would not of course extend to parties outside the contract (unless the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act is not excluded).

In terms of non-contractual terms, perhaps a film company for example could argue the subscriber was under a duty of care but again this is unlikely to stick.

Generally speaking, I think it would depend on a case by case basis and it would always be open to the subscriber to argue that although the IP address was linked to them, they were not responsible for the infringing activities. This would be determined on the evidence in each case therefore.

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#32
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK if you get caught speeding/running a red light by a camera, the ticket gets sent to the registered owner of the car. You can either take the ticket, or tell them who was driving. You cannot say 'it wasn't me, but I won't tell you who it was'. It is also a serious criminal offence to take speeding points on someone else's behalf (as it was suggested that government minister Chris Huhne asked his wife to)

What if you don't know who drove it? (you might have borrowed it to a few friends but don't know who drove it when) In Sweden a clear photo of the driver is required for anyone to be fined.

[deleted]

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#33
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you don't know who drove it? (you might have borrowed it to a few friends but don't know who drove it when) In Sweden a clear photo of the driver is required for anyone to be fined.

> What if you don't know who drove it? (you might have borrowed it to a few friends but don't know who drove it when) As someone else touched on: in most states of Australia, the owner of the vehicle (as per the registration) is responsible. If you "don't know" who was driving your car it doesn't matter-you are responsible for the vehicle unless you have reported it stolen. Which I think is fair: if you're going to l…

I feel that nailing the owner is completely unnecessary. The owner might be responsible for the vehicle but the driver is responsible for how it is driven. Parking tickets is a reasonable exception since it's hard to prove who drove it last. For your own sake you should always trust anyone you are lending your vehicle to but you shouldn't have to care for any legal implications that might result in (other than parking tickets).

In Egypt three speeding tickets means jail time (if I remember correctly), only not for the driver but for the owner. IMO that's just sick.

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#34
post #20

While I understand that today there are potential problems, it seems to me that a person ought to be responsible with what's done with his property. If he lets someone use his gun, he's got some degree of responsibility, and if he lets someone use his communication facilities, he's assuming some as well. Today this is difficult, since the average person doesn't have a clue how to set up a secure network. But this is…

Well now, it depends. If I let someone use something of mine that is licensed and restricted by the government because of the potential for misuse, such as a gun or prescription medication, then I am responsible inasmuch as I helped them circumvent government licensing. If I lend someone an easily obtainable item such as a pencil sharpener or a cat, and they commit a crime using it, I don't see how I'm responsible. T…

A hundred people are now idly trying to figure out the feasibility and logistics of robbing a bank with a cat.

I would go so far as to say that, in addition to the legal obligation to not violate a government license, you also have an ethical obligation to provide reasonable protection against theft, misuse, &c. Yet somehow it seems strange to apply that logic to network devices.

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#35

While I understand that today there are potential problems, it seems to me that a person ought to be responsible with what's done with his property. If he lets someone use his gun, he's got some degree of responsibility, and if he lets someone use his communication facilities, he's assuming some as well. Today this is difficult, since the average person doesn't have a clue how to set up a secure network. But this is…

"it seems to me that a person ought to be responsible with what's done with his property."

I think in a practical sense this is never going to happen. If you lend someone your car you are responsible and will get sued if they kill someone. The type of lawsuit and even criminal charges might depend on whether you knew of their capacity at the time to commit a crime or fitness to drive. Important distinction with cars and guns. With both you know they can be dangerous. (In the case of a gun you know even more so obviously.) There is not the same widespread knowledge or even possibility with the internet for harm along the lines of death because of use of an internet connection. Although I'm sure it's happened a few times (harassment or planning terrorism.)

As far as the requirement to lock down a network that also is not going to happen as you well know in a world that chooses "football" or "123456" for a password not to mention key loggers and viruses. Simply not the same as keeping your gun in a gun safe or knowing your neighbor is drunk and shouldn't drive your car.

"and if our laws demanded that this be do-able even by somebody's mom, then I think manufacturers would address that usability problem."

I think there is quite the demand from users to not have constant viruses, infections and hacking of computer networks (as well as embarrassment to both the software and hardware industries and to high profile websites.) Do you really think that this can be achieved with "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards so that someone's mom can have secure wifi in her house? I don't. I get calls every day from people who type domain names into the google search box instead of the browser bar.

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#36

While I understand that today there are potential problems, it seems to me that a person ought to be responsible with what's done with his property. If he lets someone use his gun, he's got some degree of responsibility, and if he lets someone use his communication facilities, he's assuming some as well. Today this is difficult, since the average person doesn't have a clue how to set up a secure network. But this is…

I don't think that's a fair comparison.

If you ask to use my phone, I'm going to let you borrow it, but I can't know whether you're going to use it to order a pizza or call in a bomb threat.

Of course I have some degree of responsibility, but with guns its is completely different - we went out of our way as a society to make rules about the responsibilities of gun owners.

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#37

While I understand that today there are potential problems, it seems to me that a person ought to be responsible with what's done with his property. If he lets someone use his gun, he's got some degree of responsibility, and if he lets someone use his communication facilities, he's assuming some as well. Today this is difficult, since the average person doesn't have a clue how to set up a secure network. But this is…

> If he lets someone use his gun, he's got some degree of responsibility, and if he lets someone use his communication facilities, he's assuming some as well.

Analogies such as these should be avoided because you're falling in the same "you won't download a car" trap.

Say, if someone comes to my party and uses a kitchen knife to commit a crime, what is the degree of my responsibility?

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#38

While I understand that today there are potential problems, it seems to me that a person ought to be responsible with what's done with his property. If he lets someone use his gun, he's got some degree of responsibility, and if he lets someone use his communication facilities, he's assuming some as well. Today this is difficult, since the average person doesn't have a clue how to set up a secure network. But this is…

I strongly disagree. When a person gives or lends something or provides a service to another person, you should not be able to hold the first person responsible for what happens, unless they had reason to believe the second person would misuse it.

The legal system depends on treating every person who is mentally competent as being responsible for his or her own actions with regard to the law. What you suggest upends that dependency.

Publishing metasploit, running a torrent tracker, running a car rental service or a gun range would all require extremely expensive liability insurance if liability always transferred.

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#39

I've often thought that if you really wanted to pirate something, just start an S-corp for ~$200 and put your cable account in its name. If you get sued, tell them to litigate until they're blue, the company is going under.

The strategy could work if done correctly and most certainly in the case of a mass lawsuit.

If the corp is opened in a place that offers nominee owners or directors even better. Although there are most certainly legal ways that someone could figure out who to sue, in a mass lawsuit it would simply not pay to put the effort in to pierce the corporate veil of any individual when there were 1500 other targets.

Despite what others have said you've made a good point to always keep in mind as an entrepreneur. Something that you are legally obligated to do by contract is very often not worth the time for the other party to file a lawsuit over. If you rely on attorneys this is not something they always will make you aware of. (My points are based upon surviving many many years in business both with and w/o contracts.)

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#40
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the business's purpose is to provide an open suburban hotspot?

You're trying to convince a human judge, not a computer program.

But you're assuming it would even get to a trier of fact. That is a mistake that lawyers make many timese that I've seen. They will settle a case with another lawyer as if the other side will actually go through and file a lawsuit and even has the money to litigate. McDonalds regularly settles slip and fall lawsuits that are merit less. It is cheaper in certain cases to just pay off the tort lawyer with $10,000 then go to court. And certainly you've seen cases where the little guy gets sued and gives up because they don't have the money to fight even though they are clearly right (or let's assume they are..)
Post reply on HN