IP is NOT a basis for incrimination !!

[Palancar]

http://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-...person-120503/

Pirate Bay's hits have been off the hook since this ruling came down. This judge is well known and respected. I believe a "wave" of similar rulings will come across the USA.

[dw426]

That ruling will make but a small annoyance to the pirate hunters. And really, if you believe this "wave" will come, you're either not up to speed on government and law in the U.S at this moment, or you have far more faith in the system than I do..and I've been around it a long time.

[Hungry Man]

Glad to see some judges have sense.

Like dw, I have very little faith that this will be part of a wave.

[LockBox]

Good reading.

If anyone is interested, the entire 'Order & Recommendations' document from Judge Brown is online at the link Palancar posted and is also available as a 26-page pdf download.

I especially liked this common sense explanation from the judge as to how an IP address does not equal a person:

“An IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones.”

“Thus, it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function – here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film – than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call.”

The Judge continues by arguing that having an IP-address as evidence is even weaker than a telephone number, as the majority of US homes have a wireless network nowadays. This means that many people, including complete strangers if one has an open network, can use the same IP-address simultaneously.

“While a decade ago, home wireless networks were nearly non-existent, 61% of US homes now have wireless access. As a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices – which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals,” Judge Brown writes.

“Different family members, or even visitors, could have performed the alleged downloads. Unless the wireless router has been appropriately secured (and in some cases, even if it has been secured), neighbors or passersby could access the Internet using the IP address assigned to a particular subscriber and download the plaintiff’s film.”

Here's a couple of good news articles about the ruling...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/25506..._lawsuits.html

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...roll-lawsuits/

edited to add links above