Important Appeals Court Ruling States Clearly That Merely Having An IP Address Is Insufficient For Infringement Claims
from the a-good-ruling dept
Tons of copyright lawsuits (and even more copyright trolling shakedowns that never even reach court) are based on one single bit of data: the IP address. We've seen numerous district courts reject using a bare IP address as evidence of infringement, but now we have a very important (even if short and to the point) ruling in the 9th Circuit that could put a serious damper on copyright trolling.
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. We conclude that it is not.
The case involved well known copyright trolling lawyer Carl Crowell representing Cobbler Nevada LLC. As we discussed in our article on the district court decision, the actions in this case were particularly nefarious. Crowell quickly learned that the IP address in question belonged to an adult foster care home, but decided to go after the operator, Thomas Gonzales, even though he was aware that any of the many residents or staff may have actually been responsible for the infringement. Gonzales (reasonably) refused to just cough up the names and details of residents and staff without a court order, and Crowell's response was just to go after Gonzales directly. But the facts of this case made it especially easy for the lower court to highlight how a mere IP address is not nearly enough to allege infringement.
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.
The direct infringement part is easy. Obviously, there's no evidence presented with a single IP address that Gonzales was downloading, so it's on its face ridiculous to claim to have evidence of direct infringement.
The only connection between Gonzales and the infringement was that he was the registered internet subscriber and that he was sent infringement notices. To establish a claim of copyright infringement, Cobbler Nevada “must show that [it] owns the copyright and that the defendant himself violated one or more of the plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.” Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2004). Cobbler Nevada has not done so.
The more important part here is the contributory infringement argument. Crowell/Cobbler claimed that Gonzales could be liable for contributory infringement for failing to lock down and police his internet connection. That's a pretty big leap and the court is not impressed. It first highlights the ever important Betamax ruling that you can't make a third party liable for infringement for distributing a product or service that is "widely used for legitimate, non-infringing purposes." Internet access counts. It also points to the Grokster ruling, in which the Supreme Court said that "inducement" to infringe could be seen as contributory liability. But merely failing to police your internet connection is, in no way, inducement.
Cobbler Nevada’s complaint lacks any allegations that Gonzales “actively encourage[ed] (or induc[ed]) infringement through specific acts.”... Nothing in Cobbler Nevada’s complaint alleges, or even suggests, that Gonzales actively induced or materially contributed to the infringement through “purposeful, culpable expression and conduct.” ... No allegations suggest that Gonzales made any “clear expression” or took “affirmative steps” to foster the infringement—Gonzales’s only action was his failure to “secure, police and protect” the connection.
And, based on the Betamax test, Gonzales is in the clear as well:
Providing internet access can hardly be said to be distributing a product or service that is not “capable of substantial” or “commercially significant noninfringing uses.”
The court has some additional words on Crowell trying to push his theory of contributory liability:
We note that Cobbler Nevada’s theory both strays from precedent and effectively creates an affirmative duty for private internet subscribers to actively monitor their internet service for infringement. Imposing such a duty would put at risk any purchaser of internet service who shares access with a family member or roommate, or who is not technologically savvy enough to secure the connection to block access by a frugal neighbor. This situation hardly seems to be one of “the circumstances in which it is just to hold one individual accountable for the actions of another.”
The court then upholds the lower court's awarding of attorney's fees to Gonzales, noting the "objective unreasonableness" of Cobbler's arguments.
Specifically, the court flagged as unreasonable Cobbler Nevada’s decision to name Gonzales as the defendant, even after concluding that Gonzales was not “a regular occupant of the residence or a likely infringer.” The court also considered deterrence: it reasoned that awarding fees would deter Cobbler Nevada from an “overaggressive pursuit of alleged infringers without a reasonable factual basis” while encouraging defendants with valid defenses to defend their rights. See Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 534 n.19. The court’s rationale is in keeping with the purposes of the Copyright Act. See Kirtsaeng, 136 S. Ct. at 1988–89 (a district court “may order fee-shifting . . . to deter . . . overaggressive assertions of copyright claims”).
Now, where this case may have a bigger impact is in lawsuits against ISPs for failing to police their networks. You may have heard of a few of these cases recently. Just last week Cox settled one of those cases, but it's facing an even bigger one from all the major record labels.
But that case is not unlike this one, just on a different scale. In this case, Gonzales is the ISP, and got sued for failing to police his network, despite receiving many infringement notices. As the court makes clear, that does not make him liable for infringement. In the Cox case, it too is the ISP who was sued for failing to police its network, despite receiving many infringement notices (indeed, Cox did much more than Gonzales). So it would appear that we may have a bit of a circuit clash here, in which the 4th Circuit says that ISPs can be liable for infringement based solely on notices of evidence that is nothing more than IP addresses, while the 9th Circuit (correctly) understands the implications of such a ruling, even to the point of finding it "objectively unreasonable."
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: 9th circuit, carl crowell, contributory infringement, copyright, copyright trolling, evidence, inducement, ip address
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is an outstanding impressive about of fail!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Marten Reed's mother would seem to disagree about that latter point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would also put at risk all Comcast internet customers due to their modems opening up public wifi access to any other Comcast subscriber. That piggybacked traffic is on the same IP address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comcast
It would also put at risk all Comcast internet customers due to their modems opening up public wifi access to any other Comcast subscriber. That piggybacked traffic is on the same IP address.
Are you sure about that? Because I thought their modems segregate that traffic, and use the logon (with comcast email) to log.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The commas, are not, necessary, here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Just ask my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher Walken would like a word
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We claim we observed an ip address for a fraction of a second sharing a block of digital data. This one tiny observation is evidence that we are owed up to the $750,000.
An IP address can not identify the person(s) using it at the time.
The fragment they claim to have observed, in most cases, can't be viewed or even recreate one frame of the movie.
They have claimed they can prove the case but only after a court forces the accused to give them access to every computing device, online account, & device in the home (all devices not just those used by the subscriber). They ignore court instructions about what to look for, in some cases they ignore the forensically sound images until the 11th hour (or 5th extension of time motion), and when there is no evidence it is held up as proof that the subscriber deleted it in such a way that an expert could find no record of it ever having been there. If a visitor to the home plugged in a flash drive 3 years ago & that isn't turned over its 'proof' they are hiding the drive that could prove the case.
They ask to depose the neighbors, asking if they were the ones who used the subscribers account to 'STEAL' the movie in an attempt not to get proof, but to cause the subscriber to weigh the reputation damage against the few thousand of making it all go away.
They submit lists of hundreds of other copyright items they claim the subscriber stole, using the same fraction of a second proof, to influence the court into putting more faith in the claims. This 'technology' has never been proven in a court & they actively attempt to protect it from any sort of review that might expose issues.
They get the subscribers name then troll social media trying to infer more connections to bolster the claim. Oh they liked a Game of Thrones page, and GOT is on our list of other stuff we claim they stole (despite not having any interest in that), ergo they stole our movie too. In porn cases anyone in the household with a penis is pointed at as the culprit.
It costs the trolls $400 to file.
It costs the accused thousands to defend & deal with delays and obstruction.
As Judge Wright observed, the court should not be a cog in their shakedown scheme, but this is what happens in case after case.
Even when they accused can prove beyond any doubt they didn't do it, the troll gets to cut & run to avoid having to pay the costs of people they accused without actual merit.
It is unfair to make the accused bear any of the costs when the case collapses. Fee shifting should be used to remind the trolls that they need actual evidence and not bold accusations without backing. Allowing them to terrorize people with the power of the court & then flee when they can't prove it. If you make baseless accusations & disrupt people, there is a price to be paid & that price should be at least the cost of defending these crap accusations.
I mean Cobbler has cut & run from so many cases, but still tries to tell courts they are on the up and up, when any real challenge to their methods is brought up. If putting the right phrase & demands in an answer/counterclaim results in them doing the cut & run in case after case after case... perhaps the Judges should be able to ask questions on if these are real cases or just cogs turning in an extortion scheme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They "see" a connection made & the hit is a millisecond at best. They don't see if the piece is fully transferred.
Even at 2 - 3 seconds of a movie without the header information its just garbage. It isn't a copy of the full movie, its a bunch of 1's & 0's.
They don't bother to track them from start to finish, it is merely a single "hit" that is assumed the whole movie was transferred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It could be hell
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/09/maxmind-mapping-lawsuit-kansas-farm-ip-addres s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It could be hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not QUITE the same
Gonzales may have been a defacto ISP, but he did not have a repeat infringer policy to "fail to follow".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not QUITE the same
Being found guilty of copyright infringment is a legal conclusion, not the result of some random company sending extortion letters in the format of a DMCA notice.
Their safe harbor was lost because the Judge on the case has a hardon for the cartels. (See also who ran the Mega trial & claimed not being willing to come to the US to finally be properly served in a place he had no real contacts with meant he had fled justice.)
Following his methodology, saying he is a pedophile 5 times in a row should result in him being in prison.
No trial needed, just the word of a company that exists to extort money from people they accuse while collecting a large cut of the cash.
No one can explain how a company who has hidden their source code, defying a court order, from outside review of its reliability is allowed to dictate who is allowed to have internet access.
Just because you can get 10 hits of an ip address (and in some cases within milliseconds of each other multiple notices for a single event) does not prove the subscriber is the downloader, yet Judge Grady has decided that this for profit company can send enough notices to have what might be the only ISP in town throw you off unless you pay the fee they demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OR, they'll now get identifying / browser details from Google.
That's soon to come. Your friend Google will SELL YOUR details for about a quarter, and it'll be enough to not just accuse an IP address, but to get search warrants of your computer.
Yet again, Mike "supports copyright" Masnick is simply cheering the problems that make enforcement difficult.
But after Cox folded, it's a new era. ISPs are now required to take seriously the notifications of infringement. The details they have (and will logically be forced to provide) of the actual computer behind the address will nail it down.
That's assuming this isn't effectively over-turned. Suppose were drug-dealing, murder, child porn: think that doctrine will stand? NOPE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By the way, Mansick yet again merely re-writing days late.
And after I've suppressed the Zombies for you! No sigthings this week. -- You might also note LACK of new accounts. Last one I saw was two weeks ago...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: By the way, Mansick yet again merely re-writing days late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: By the way, Mansick yet again merely re-writing days late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: By the way, Mansick yet again merely re-writing days late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: By the way, Mansick yet again merely re-writing days late.
And by that I mean you're performing a service of no value. Please just stop. You're only embarrassing yourself at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: By the way, Mansick yet again merely re-writing days late.
Have a great day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: By the way, Mansick yet again merely re-writing days late.
Seriously, seek help. I'm certain you're a textbook case of something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: By the way, Mansick yet again merely re-writing days late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: By the way, Mansick yet again merely re-writing days late.
many, many people for years
Right. Like the thousands of "sleeping giant artists" hurricane head/David Lowery swore up and down would rise up with the death of SOPA to rape every search engine out of existence.
Or the thousands of "inventors hurt by this site" Hamilton insisted would stand by Shiva Ayyadurai and all he could find were a few publicity SEOs and Janice Duffy.
Yeah... many, many people. On a site you fuckheads gleefully claim nobody reads.
How's that Paul Hansmeier defense fund coming along bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: By the way, Mansick yet again merely re-writing days late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can someone protect their copyright when they cannot identify who is stealing their work, and cannot hold the intermediaries liable? Answer: they can't.
Why even have copyright and libel laws if there is no protection for all? Might as well abolish b oth and turn the internet into a true free-for-all. Right now we have an "only the criminals have guns" situation.
I gave up on the ideal of publishing books even if some will sell a few copies here and there. Those who can get major media exposure (like on the network owned by DISNEY or another big evil corporation), while everyone else sees their work disappear into a black hole, with no money coming out?
Those who do "prove themselves" with free material still can't sell the premium material to more than a single customer. Price? Six figures. Pure patronage model that circumvents the need for copyright protection. Or they make YouTube videos that Google can protect and monetize with its distribution for a very reasonable cut of 32 percent.
Like i said, artists will adapt, but the audience won't because it can't. Unless you think every how-to and self-improvement book ever written is a scam, the audience loses when creators have no incentive to produce. The creators will find a way but that way may not help anyone. Life will go on, with governments getting less tax revenue, creators getting paid less and migrating o other industries, anrd the audience getting the big pile of free stuff it dreamed of, only it's all crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How does one protect their reputation when someone can defame them from an anonymous remailer, never be traced, and have the lies end up in a search engine?
Set the record straight publicly, not rely on a pseudonym, and don't write stuff that give the impression that you have something to hide?
How can someone protect their copyright when they cannot identify who is stealing their work, and cannot hold the intermediaries liable?
Get a court order, maybe evidence that's more than an IP address, instead of relying on the trolls you claim to loathe but can't stop using as your enforcement muscle?
I gave up on the ideal of publishing books even if some will sell a few copies here and there
Instead you took to whining on a tech blog that nobody reads?
Or they make YouTube videos that Google can protect and monetize with its distribution for a very reasonable cut of 32 percent
Gee, sounds like a viable model that you just won't touch because... why, you feel that indebted to the RIAA for suing kids?
Unless you think every how-to and self-improvement book ever written is a scam
That's the gimmick you're going for? Flogging self-help books to gullible people who are willing to fund your retirement?
And you wonder why your credibility is shit...
with governments getting less tax revenue, creators getting paid less and migrating o other industries, anrd the audience getting the big pile of free stuff it dreamed of, only it's all crap
"Jones will come back! Yes, Jones will come back!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If by self help you mean 'make a fortune doing x', why are you moaning about not being able to sell the book when you could be making a fortune by doing what you write about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How can someone protect their copyright when they cannot identify who is stealing their work, and cannot hold the intermediaries liable? Answer: they can't.
How is it my problem that technology makes things difficult for you? Answer: it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's 32 bits of data (or 128 bits for IPv6).
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about IPv6?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about IPv6?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]