Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 31 2018, @12:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the Free-your-WiFi!-(but-use-QoS) dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Court Rules on Merits of IP Address Identification in Open WiFi Case:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was presented with a case about open WiFi and the responsibility of the owner of the network when someone commits copyright infringement on the IP address. Thomas Gonzalez was sued by the makers of the Adam Sandler movie, The Cobbler. He had won his initial day in court, but the copyright owners appealed the decision. In the new ruling (pdf), Judge Margaret McKeown had this to say, "In this copyright action, we consider whether a bare allegation that a defendant is the registered subscriber of an Internet Protocol ('IP') address associated with infringing activity is sufficient to state a claim for direct or contributory infringement." She then states, "We conclude that it is not."

From the ruling:

The district court properly dismissed Cobbler Nevada's claims. The direct infringement claim fails because Gonzales's status as the registered subscriber of an infringing IP address, standing alone, does not create a reasonable inference that he is also the infringer. Because multiple devices and individuals may be able to connect via an IP address, simply identifying the IP subscriber solves only part of the puzzle. A plaintiff must allege something more to create a reasonable inference that a subscriber is also an infringer. Nor can Cobbler Nevada succeed on a contributory infringement theory because, without allegations of intentional encouragement or inducement of infringement, an individual's failure to take affirmative steps to police his internet connection is insufficient to state a claim.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday August 31 2018, @02:14PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday August 31 2018, @02:14PM (#728745) Journal

    Yes, you're right, just determining whether copyright infringement has occurred requires info that must be current and may well not be, whereas speeding is easily determined with a simple measurement of speed and knowledge of the speed limit. Because copyright does eventually expire, an action that is copyright infringement yesterday might not be infringing today. Speeding is a far more dangerous and consequential offense, and it doesn't expire.

    Maybe a better analogy is "failure to observe cars passing by your residence, recording all their license plate numbers, and reporting to the authorities those that have more than 30k miles since their last tuneup."

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2