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.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday August 31 2018, @12:58PM (5 children)
These copyright trolls want to turn everyone into copyright police. It's like the East German Stasi, which encouraged members of the public to rat eat other out.
A car analogy might be "failure to report that another vehicle is speeding", should you witness such rule breaking.
Oh, and do Adam Sandler movies even qualify as art?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2018, @01:28PM (1 child)
> A car analogy might be "failure to report that another vehicle is speeding", should you witness such rule breaking.
Bad analogy. You can at least know that a vehicle is speeding, but there is no place to check if someone has a license to download (or upload) something. The only one who has that information is the copyright holder, so there is literally no way for any other person, corporation, service, or institution, to be certain that someone is infringing. You can suspect it, but you can't prove it.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday August 31 2018, @02:14PM
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."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday August 31 2018, @02:02PM (2 children)
The problem. What is infringement? (Pilate to Jesus: What is truth?)
Even the copyright owners can't get it right. Their enforcement arm DMCAs their promotion arm. (eg, left hand doesn't know what the right hand is masturbating.) Further, is it infringement, or is it fair use? Does it qualify under the established fair use factors, written into the law? Sometimes even courts have a difficult time deciding, so how are you or I supposed to decide who we must be obligated to rat out?
Why do we have DMCA super powers? Because evil commie terrorist pirates can crank out automated infringement on such a massive scale that we need magical super powers to turn off the internet anytime, anywhere! Waaaaaaaaa! (sniff) Whhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
So, if there is a $150,000 statutory penalty for infringement, I propose an equal sized penalty for a defective DMCA notice. It seems fair. After all, evil commie terrorists copyright trolls can crank out defective DMCA notices on such a massive scale that we need a super deterrent severe enough to prevent this abuse. By defective DMCA notice I mean: (a) it is not filed by the copyright owner or registered agent, (b) it fails to even state a copyright infringement claim, what work is infringed, who infringed it, basic facts, etc, (c) it is OBVIOUSLY not infringement, like someone's original nature recording that is being claimed as infringement of a musical "art".
Half the population employed to spy on the other half.
Does Justin Bieber music even qualify as music?
For that matter, does most modern music qualify as music?
Today: take modem noise, add heavy drums and a short repetitive bass line, and *poof*, like magic, you've got music!
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday August 31 2018, @05:10PM (1 child)
Well, not liking something doesn't mean it's not art or music. The problem is there's no acceptable definition. Picasso occasionally practiced "junk art". Klaus Oldfield sculpted an ashtray full of realistic cigarette butts. Andy Warhol is reputed to have kept a cabinet full of unopened tomato soup cans that he would sign for people he liked.
I'm not familiar with current art or music, because I *don't* like it, but this wouldn't keep me from being willing to call it art and music.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 31 2018, @06:58PM
My last three words were "you've got music". So I would lump the modem noise in with music in the sense of categorization.
Not in the sense that such art and music engages my brain in any meaningful way.
Now there is art and music which I don't like that I would gladly (not grudgingly) recognize as art and music. I may not like the sound of some rap artist, but I recognize that they do communicate and engage their listener. It's not random and it's not line noise. It is a deliberate creative act, even if I don't care to listen to it.
Similarly with art. Even if I don't like it, it is art if it is a creative act in some sense. Although that definition can be stretched to absurdity.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 3, Funny) by rigrig on Friday August 31 2018, @01:37PM (4 children)
Somehow this reminded me of the Nethack punishment for pudding farming.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 4, Funny) by takyon on Friday August 31 2018, @01:43PM (1 child)
"A cobbler, bored of his everyday life, stumbles upon a magical heirloom that allows him to become other people and see the world in a different way."
"A pirate, tired of living, stumbles upon an Adam Sandler movie and regrets it."
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 31 2018, @02:15PM
Maybe Adam Sandler movies and Justin Bieber music were designed for use in prisons? Through clerical error, they accidentally fell into the hands of Hollywood executives which made it inevitable they would be released upon an unsuspecting public?
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Friday August 31 2018, @02:11PM
It reminded me of: you failed to understand your agreements in advance of your interaction.
(when talking about getting mugged, beaten and robbed in a lawless anarchy)
Should an innocent person unknowingly starting to watch an Adam Sandler movie have a reasonable claim of being assaulted if the movie did not provide adequate warning before the audiovisual assault commenced? Or if that warning were drowned out in the noise of FIB warnings, Homeland Security warnings, You Must Be A Pirate!! warnings, in multiple languages, followed by unskippable commercials.
(Homeland Security warnings, on a movie, seriously? Am I supposed to believe it is serious and not some kind of colossal government endorsed joke that everyone is laughing about? Or is this serious crime of letting someone else watch a movie on a par with terrorists?)
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2018, @02:38PM
My what a good way to get someone lost for hours in a nethack wikiwalk
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2018, @03:53PM
After hearing about this ruling, the guys from Prenda Law were overheard saying "Hold our beer ..."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by deimtee on Friday August 31 2018, @07:40PM
This bit is interesting. It appears to protect anyone who simply sets up free wi-fi, but it also implies that individuals do not need to take any action to protect someone else's copyright. Simply knowing about infringement is insufficient for a contributory claim, you must be intentionally encouraging or inducing it.
The copyright cartel are not going to like that.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by archfeld on Friday August 31 2018, @08:35PM (2 children)
I question how is anyone other than the copyright owner to know whether posting or downloading something is a violation, or merely the 'legal' owner of something posting or downloading it ? I can see the idea that the owner of the copyright notifies a network owner/operator and has a right to expect them to act in a reasonable time frame to remedy the situation but beyond that it is unreasonable to expect a company or private individual to keep track of who owns what. Not even touching on the fact that a dynamic IP is hardly a unique finger print identification method.
My home WIFI is open and my neighbors or strangers often partake. It is one of the joys of a Gbps connection. If I encounter issue I just boot whomever I don't recognize off. I assign my known devices IP addresses based on MAC addresses, and make a dozen or so other IP's available for use. One of my neighbors mows my lawn in exchange for access, another drops peaches and pomegranates on my porch, and yet another comes by with beers and a joint in the evenings. All in all it works out nicely in my opinion. The key is assuring each device on the network is locked down tight at the source and not to depend on the router as a firewall.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:09PM (1 child)
you commie yer stealin from a isp
ya neighburs shuld pay theuir own way
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Sunday September 02 2018, @04:09PM
How do you figure that ? There is no limit on the number of devices I can have on my connection. I've only had one warning, a couple of years ago My brother and I both DL'd an online game, Rifts at the same time and we got a warning but no action was taken, nor have I ever been approached by anyone or contacted by the ISP since. You're just jealous that no one likes you enough to share...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2018, @08:43PM
how long did this obvious truth take to be weaseled out of the legal system? better late than never, i guess.