Italy Is The Latest Country To Realize IP Address Alone Does Not ID File Sharers
from the took-'em-long-enough dept
For many years, people who understand these things have pointed out that an IP address alone does not accurately identify who was doing any sort of file sharing. In many cases, it doesn't even accurately identify who was paying for the connection being used. Yet, the industry has often relied on IP addresses as definitive proof of file sharing. Only recently have courts begun to recognize how that's a problem. So it's nice to see that an Italian court is now recognizing that IP addresses alone are not enough to identify a file sharer, and even throwing out cases that don't have much more in the way of evidence. Still, in most of the various cases, it's never really about getting people to court. The industry prefers to scare people with a letter implying it has the evidence, and then getting people to pay up a "settlement fee" before they can defend themselves, because that's a lot cheaper than going to court.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: file sharing, identification, ip addresses, italy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Making a Statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Making a Statement?
"Perhaps a good (unpatentable) idea for people who want to freely release their music"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090616/0946355250.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Making a Statement?
I'll build the technology....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would bet you that most of the people settling are in fact guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am confident most of the people settling know they couldn't win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In that case a 'settlement' is often the only affordable option.
Until there is some sort of parity in the justice system, the civil law will always be in favour of those with deep pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ergo, this amounts to little more than extortion, with some clever craft on the side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Settling with **AA != guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Presumed Innocent until proven guilty
I have music on my computer that is all perfectly legal, with original copies purchased. And not intentionally made available to others on the internet and under normal circumstances should not be visible to them. But that is not to say that those with the spy software could not find it, but does that make it file sharing? Because "making available" is about half of what these cases are based on, not to mention the IP mis-identification thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is that kind of like "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you think people are guilty until proven innocent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nonsense
It would be a big waste of their time. Too many people are actually scared by some letter from a big law firm on that ominous letterhead they use. They cannot collect if you do not have it, bottom line. Their biggest fear is that if more people realize this their letters would be rendered powerless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes
Interesting, but hardly surprising. These people (scum, as I like to call them) do just as their corporate masters do: hide behind walls of FUD and lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WH - is that you ?
Free as in beer, or free as a bird ?
What do you mean by "More often than not"
How many nots are there ? Where are you getting your numbers ?
And btw, the silly basement dwelling nerd story is really getting old. New material would be welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes
If it wasn't for piracy, millions of people would have never seen or heard any of the billions of movies and songs that they downloaded. File trading has boosted the publicity of every single artist affected by it. No file sharing: no publicity.
That is if you follow the inane logic of "downloaded file = lost sale" that Harold likes to point out.
And I'm sorry you grew up so insecure about yourself that you had to pick on people living in their parents' basement. Maybe there is some underlying abuse from an alcoholic parent that is the cause of all of this. Look in the yellow pages - I'm sure there is a counseling hotline that you can call.
Good luck Harold!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IPv6
That reminds me to get my patent out on my file sharing toaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I ain't harold, sorry - there is a harold signed up here though.
However, to your point, I don't take that hard (and stupid) logic of download = lost sale. But I do take that enough downloads leads to some lost sales.
"File trading has boosted the publicity of every single artist affected by it."
Yes, and just like the example of Google asking for FREE stuff for Chrome, most people are smart enough to know that exposure isn't everything. If an artist never charges for their work but is well known all over the world. how exactly does that help him live?
The logic at work here appears to be that there wasn't anywhere near enough publicity before, that people didn't know about any movies or any music, and they were ignorant. Giving it all away for free has someone made people suddenly aware that music exists. Oh yeah, and suddenly they have a bunch more money to buy expensive concert tickets. Yup, got it.
Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Companies pay millions of dollars for the same exposure (through ad campaigns).
Neither strategy has any immediate return. One has immediate loss. Care to explain why a business model that has been in use for decades doesn't actually work?
And for your second point, say that only 1000 people have money to spend on concerts. Currently, you are only getting 10 of those people. By spreading your music around freely, now 50 of those people like your music enough to go to a concert. It's quite simple, really.
And if you don't believe that actually works, take a look at the Anime and Manga industry in North America. It used to be a complete dead industry, minus the few Oscar worthy movies. Now? It's a booming market. How did this happen? The exact same method that you are ridiculing. Hundreds-of-thousands of people distributed and watched fan-made translations for FREE, creating the market that never even existed before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
extortion if they don't actually sue
Extortion is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: extortion if they don't actually sue
Can't you read what you just wrote? Notice the "unlawfully" part of that. These settlement offers are lawful, thus not "extortion".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]