[telecom] Judge: An IP-Address Doesn't Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

Per Monty Solomon:

That sure took a long time.

Are there implications for other than New York residents?

I wonder how this differs from the precedent of traffic cameras that take pictures of the license plates of cars that run red lights, and then a ticket is mailed to the registrant of the license plate? They could have let a friend of family member borrow the car.

In Minnesota, it doesn't differ. My city installed a bunch of red light cameras, and they're now standing idle due to the fact that no one could testify under oath that the driver was the owner of the car.

Dave

Which is exactly the reasoning used to abolish the use of red-light cameras in Minneapolis, Minnesota a few years back.

Not _directly_.

Until, and unless, the ruling is (a) appealed, and (b) confirmed by a NYS appellate court, it is not 'binding' on any other NYS judge.

And a NYS court ruling -- at whatever level -- is _not_ binding on any court outside of NY.

Other courts _may_ consider this ruling, and _may_ find it "persuasive", but they are NOT required to do so. G

It is 'likely' that either the instant case (which _is_ contrary to prior NYS court findings) or a subsequent NYS case which finds to the contrary

-will- be appealed -- so as to resolve the 'inconsistency' in court rulings, and that there will =then= be 'binding' precedent for NYS cases.

All that aside, what the NY ruling does do -- and which *does* have implications outside NY state -- is lay out a 'roadmap' for defending a case where the 'identity' of the purported infringer is established solely by the IP address in use.

I expect that: a) a -lot- of defenses will quote -extensively- from this ruling b) the 'movers' behind these suits will lobby _hard_ or changes in the law.

Item b) could get "interesting". IF the laws -do- get changed, ISPs could find -themselves- liable for actions of others who use 'their' IP address.

This may be off-topic, but I think I have a thought herein.

Governments actually only have three ways of getting money: taxes, penalties, and licenses. Licenses are sometimes called permits and sometimes called rent (such as for a parking space). This matters in a discussion of red-light cameras. The laws explicitly state that the money charged is not a criminal or civil penalty. Paying the "fine" has no repercussion in traffic enforcement. No points are charged against one's license, nor is there an insurance penalty. So the "fine" is not a penalty. Nor can it be a tax. That leaves licenses.

Legally, then, perhaps the government is actually selling YOUR CAR a one-time PERMIT to run a red light at the specific location and time involved. In other words, it matters not who was operating the car. Nor does it matter if you can get your "friend of a family member" to pay the price. This leads to some interesting speculation, but it is the only consequence that results from the facts and philosophies of governmental power involved.

Curt Bramblett