Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 104 posts

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

#41

Post by rmc »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #17

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…

Manufactors are partially to blame aswell. e.g. WEP is still available. It is totally insecure and should not be used. Any consumer grade equipment that only supports WEP is just encouraging people to be insecure while thinking they are secure.

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

#42

Post by larrys »

jasonkolb wrote: post #11
mnutt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would likely be a case where a corporation would not protect you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

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

I really like your thinking. This is exactly what you have to do when confronted with legal opinions and what lawyers are telling you. You have to challenge them ask questions and propose ideas. They aren't going to think for you and depending on their ethics they aren't going to put words in your mouth (and tell you how to lie and I'm not implying you are doing that). (Same with accountants as well.)

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

#44

Post by rbanffy »

jasonkolb wrote: post #5

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.

If you make the ownership graph sufficiently complicated (as in enough companies crossing enough international jurisdictions through enough shared-ownership layers) you'll be:

1) invulnerable to lawsuits

2) the coolest person in the whole internet

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

#45

Post by tseabrooks »

waqf wrote: post #20
CWuestefeld wrote: post #17

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…

Important to not that in the vast majority of the U.S. there is no such thing as gun "licensing" or "registration". You can trade, loan, buy, give, or otherwise move firearms around all you wish with private parties.

Your only obligation in most places is to ask, "Are you legally allowed to own a gun".

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

#46

Post by pasbesoin »

rbanffy wrote: post #43

If this doesn't create a push towards IPv6, I don't know what will...

I've wondered why this hasn't received more attention. Probably because it hasn't "happened yet", WRT the (negative) experience of end users. Can't be too much longer, now, though.

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

#47

Post by pasbesoin »

larrys wrote: post #39
jasonkolb wrote: post #5

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 w…

A lot of law, in practice, comes down to cost/benefit rather than right/wrong.

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

#48

Post by mseebach »

rbanffy wrote: post #43

If this doesn't create a push towards IPv6, I don't know what will...

That won't change anything. The subpoena will still be for the person who pays the bill at a location where multiple devices may be connected. I doubt that judge will give a subpoena to go look for a computer with a given MAC address at a location. But those worried can just change MAC address every few days.
Post reply on HN