// Home / News

US judge rules out IP address evidence in file-sharing case

By Stewart Mitchell

Posted on 4 May 2011 at 08:34

A US judge has ruled that an IP address does not equate to identifying a person, in a legal ruling that could have far-reaching consequences.

In a case remarkably similar the the infamous ACS Law proceedings, which were thrown out of court in the UK earlier this year, porn company VPR Internationale was seeking the personal addresses of hundreds of alleged illegal file-sharers based on their IP addresses.

Armed with these details, lawyers have chased individuals for payment related to copyright material they are accused of downloading based only on their IP addresses.

The infringer might be the subscriber, someone in the subscriber’s household, a visitor with her laptop, a neighbour, or someone parked on the street at any given moment

The so-called mass lawsuits have been criticised on both sides of the Atlantic – indeed the judge called the exercises “fishing trips”.

The ruling in an Illinois court by Judge Harold Baker could put an end to such practices after he said IP addresses were an insufficient form of ID.

“The infringer might be the subscriber, someone in the subscriber’s household, a visitor with her laptop, a neighbour, or someone parked on the street at any given moment,” Judge Baker said.

The judge cited a recent case in which federal enforcers raided a property to arrest suspects accused of child pornography offences, only to discover that the real perpetrators had been piggy-backing on the network.

The ruling will give further ammunition to rights campaigners on both sides of the Atlantic who have argued that IP address identification – as outlined in the Digital Economy Act, and which could be used to cut off habitual downloaders – should not be used as an identification tool.

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

Good

IP Evidence is thinner than grainy CCTV footage as a method of identifying someone.
Legal channels should concentrate on people selling pirate music online or at markets and bootfairs (DVD CAMrips sold for £2), rather than trying to sue 12 year old kids for downloading one copy of a Jusin Bieber song.

By cheysuli on 4 May 2011

A big problem with IP addresses is that the purpose of these cases is just to let you confront the person who you say injured you, rather than prove any issues of fact. There's not a great deal of difference between an IP number you painstakingly tracked down and one you wrote on a napkin.

By steviesteveo12 on 4 May 2011

Good Judgement

It is nice to see that at least one Judge can make a learned decision that is sensible.

The Statement [Quote]
The infringer might be the subscriber, someone in the subscriber’s household, a visitor with her laptop, a neighbour, or someone parked on the street at any given moment.
[Unquote]
Implies a future scenario with a FIXED IP address, "Piggy Backing" could implicate the wrong perpetrator.

Company's that send out demands on these basis should be find and banned.

By lenmontieth on 4 May 2011

phew

Happy to know, although this is the US. My other half recently received an email from BT forwarded from some bunch of numpties working on behalf of Fox.

Essentially someone was torrenting a copy of the recent Narnia film on our IP address. The email ran to about 2 pages and we were warned this was against the BT T&Cs. However, no warnings were made or any repercussions forthcoming.

It wasn't the kids and we all went to see the thing when it came out. Obviously it freaked my other half out. A judgement like this does help to allay the fears of the innocent, but doesn't stop dodgy companies sending out threatening emails.

By Mosher on 4 May 2011

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.