RIAA to lose?

[shifty]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/08/1522247/Judge-Rules-IP-Addresses-Not-Personally-Identifiable?from=rss

yuna49 writes, "Online Media Daily reports that a federal judge in Seattle has held that IP addresses are not personal information. 'In order for "personally identifiable information" to be personally identifiable, it must identify a person. But an IP address identifies a computer,' US District Court Judge Richard Jones said in a written decision. Jones issued the ruling in the context of a class-action lawsuit brought by consumers against Microsoft stemming from an update that automatically installed new anti-piracy software. In that case, which dates back to 2006, consumers alleged that Microsoft violated its user agreement by collecting IP addresses in the course of the updates. This ruling flatly contradicts a recent EU decision to the contrary, as well as other cases in the US. Its potential relevance to the RIAA suits should be obvious to anyone who reads Slashdot."

[Ninjahedge]

/me confused.

/me no reads slashdot.

[Saboteur]

If your IP address doesn't identify YOU as an individual, then the RIAA can't sue YOU for activity linked to a specific IP address.

[lilith]

Right.... it's my computer's fault! Not mine!!! :D

[shifty]

Well, that's not what they're trying to say, Lil..... :D

An IP address identifies a DEVICE. It doesn't identify a PERSON. So, filing lawsuit or criminal charges against a person based on IP address and nothing more doesn't work because IP = device, IP != person.

[chrol]

It's like a minor at an adult site. They say "Click here to confirm you are 18" but in reality it could be a kid, it could be the kid's dad, it could be a friend over visiting.

Of course I would have had no experiences with that when I was a minor. None at all. In fact, I have no idea what I just typed.

[Saboteur]

Its like saying if your car struck and killed a pedestrian but no one got a look at the driver before the car drove off, that wouldn't be conclusive proof that you were responsible.

[chrol]

Its like saying if your car struck and killed a pedestrian but no one got a look at the driver before the car drove off, that wouldn't be conclusive proof that you were responsible.

And who knows whether or not the driver was looking at a porn site during the crash? :D

[dragonash]

I knew that was Sab the other night!

[lilith]

Well, that's not what they're trying to say, Lil..... :D

An IP address identifies a DEVICE. It doesn't identify a PERSON. So, filing lawsuit or criminal charges against a person based on IP address and nothing more doesn't work because IP = device, IP != person.

Right... that's what all the criminals say when they get caught in our library looking at child porn or whatever. "It wasn't me!" "The computer just started with all these pop ups!" "I didn't know what to do!" "I couldn't stop it!"

Funny how it always only happens to the patrons with the prior convinctions!!! :p

[lilith]

Its like saying if your car struck and killed a pedestrian but no one got a look at the driver before the car drove off, that wouldn't be conclusive proof that you were responsible.

uh, actually.... that's true. Just because it's your car doesn't mean you were driving it! :o

[Saboteur]

Yep - and that's the gist of the ruling that Shifty posted about.

[Slayer]

uh, actually.... that's true. Just because it's your car doesn't mean you were driving it! :o

Actually, the owner of the car is responsible unless they tell law enforcement who was driving the car. You own the car, you are responsible for who is driving it.

In Madison here, I am certified to fill out "boom car" police reports and send them to the MPD. The Madison ordinace states that if the owner of the vehicle was not the operator of the vehicle, then the owner needs to inform the police who was, or else the owner gets the ticket.

[lilith]

What if the car was stolen? :)

[shifty]

Actually, the owner of the car is responsible unless they tell law enforcement who was driving the car.

false.

if you can prove there was no way you were in the car, you cant be charged.

[Ninjahedge]

That's the key though Shift. (And who knows if that is the case in all states)

But the insurance companies do not need to follow the law. If your CAR was in an accident, and they can't find anyone to take responsibility for it, they will get their money somehow and your rates will go up.

Makes partial sense, in that it was proven that your car is more of a risk to insure, regardless of whether you were officially in it or not, but the way that they do buisness is just rediculous.

[shifty]

I'm just saying, "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is what is supposedly required to find you guilty. If you have a lawyer worth half his weight in silver, and that lawyer can prove there was no way you were in the car, unless the state can prove you were, they can't do jack. in order to find you guilty "because you own it", they first must PROVE you knew who was in the car, knew they committed the crime, knew they were guilty, something. if you have no knowledge of a crime committed, and it happened using something you own, the state MUST prove knowledge. this goes back to the same core fundamental used with possession: two things are required to prove possession: knowledge and dominion (ownership). if i have a stolen gun in my house, but it doesn't have any trace i ever touched it, and the state can't prove i knew it was there, i can't be charged with possession of it. what if a previous owner left it there? what if someone put it there to hide it?

trust me, been there, done that. cops tried to nail me for possession of marijuana when i was 19 because i was at a house where my friend was selling drugs. the weed was (not mine) about 20' from my head, and i stayed at his house enough that they could squeak by with dominion, BUT they couldn't prove i knew it was there. it wasn't in plain sight.

in the case of the car...

sure, i own it.
did i know what it was doing?
no.
did i have control over it?
no.
then eat my ass. i didn't do anything wrong.

(Lil's stolen car example is perfect example of why such a law would be unconstitutional)

[Slayer]

If a car is stolen, then you wouldn't be at fault. But if you lend your car to a friend and he violated a law/ordinace with it, then you become liable unless you give the police that person's name.

With the boom car ordinance thing, the car owner is responsible for the noise vilolation, unless he turns in the name of the person that was operating thier car. If the car was taken without your permission, then they look at auto theft and would maybe would add the noise vilolation later. If you gave permission to your friend to use the car and you refuse to give his name to the police, then you get the ticket. Think of it as obstructing an officer kind of thing. I have filled out over 100 of these reports, and not one person has fought it.