Judge: IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Movie Pirate

[R-T-B]

That would mean the entire internet infrastructure is only composed of switches and no routers.

No, that just means you don't hide behind one IPv6 IP. You get a network of your own to play with, usually a /64 type.

He's actually right. I tried to explain this earlier, NAT is deprecated in IPv6. There is no concept in 90% of router firmwares out there for NAT, and those that have it are likely CISCO grade crap which no one in their right mind would buy for a home setup.

They did set up a range for NAT in the development phase which is considered "private addresses," but it's largely unused and it's use is actually discouraged.

 

[twilyth]

There has always been a way to play and not pay for people due to digital-deniability.

True, it just gets more expensive in many cases. For example these days in the US if you're not using a VPN while doing certain things, you're just begging to get DMCA notices - which is fine until someone decides to send you more than just a notice.

 

[Steevo]

No, that just means you don't hide behind one IPv6 IP. You get a network of your own to play with, usually a /64 type.

He's actually right. I tried to explain this earlier, NAT is deprecated in IPv6. There is no concept in 90% of router firmwares out there for NAT, and those that have it are likely CISCO grade crap which no one in their right mind would buy for a home setup.

They did set up a range for NAT in the development phase which is considered "private addresses," but it's largely unused and it's use is actually discouraged.

At the current rate of IPv6 adoption we will have to worry about it in 5-10 years, too much legacy hardware exists and is in use to make a full implementation, plus NAT offers some security to consumers.

 

[R-T-B]

At the current rate of IPv6 adoption we will have to worry about it in 5-10 years, too much legacy hardware exists and is in use to make a full implementation, plus NAT offers some security to consumers.

Comcast has pushed out IPv6 all over the west coast. It's coming very quickly. And the actual published standards deprecate and discourage NAT use, not just firmware implementations. It's being said that the solution would be some kind of software firewall deployment or maybe a network bridge of sorts with a firewall built in.

It's already an issue for a large number of americans on the west coast thinking they don't need a software firewall because they are behind NAT. If they are a comcast user, their IPv6 IP is likely completely open and public.

Still, I agree that IPv4 will be with us for a VERY long time yet...

 

[Easo]

What about it?

The fact they will find "you" and prove that "you" did download that movie.
Hard to play fool when they show logs to judge.
Of course, there are various legal aspects, but...

 

[qubit]

The fact they will find "you" and prove that "you" did download that movie.
Hard to play fool when they show logs to judge.
Of course, there are various legal aspects, but...

As has been explained several times on this thread now by various people, no IP address can show the actual person who did the infringing download, no matter how accurate the logs are. Therefore they can't prove squat.

 

[twilyth]

Another thing to consider is how much proof does a plaintiff have to produce in a civil case before the burden shifts to the defendant. For example, it's possible that logs associating a particular individual with a particular illegal download is enough to make a prima facie case against that person. If so, then the burden can shift to the defendant to show why the plaintiff's evidence is incorrect or to put forward an affirmative defense.

http://courts.uslegal.com/burden-of-proof/shifting-burden-of-proof/

Another example of a shifting burden is that in employment discrimination cases. Once the plaintiff has met his or her burden of proof by establishing a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show some non-discriminatory reason for its action. If the defendant essentially meets that burden of proof by presenting legitimate reasons for the alleged action, the burden again shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the proffered “legitimate” reasons were pretextual.

 

[qubit]

Another example of a shifting burden is that in employment discrimination cases. Once the plaintiff has met his or her burden of proof by establishing a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show some non-discriminatory reason for its action. If the defendant essentially meets that burden of proof by presenting legitimate reasons for the alleged action, the burden again shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the proffered “legitimate” reasons were presexual.

Sorry, I'd seen some hot babe on the internet and my mind was somewhere else.

 

[dorsetknob]

For example, it's possible that logs associating a particular individual with a particular illegal download

Logs do not associate a particular individual with a particular illegal download.

Logs associate to a IP address

Sorry, I'd seen some hot babe on the internet and my mind was somewhere else.

link please or we don't believe you no pic tho don't want to be too distracted

 

[twilyth]

Logs do not associate a particular individual with a particular illegal download.

Logs associate to a IP address

True, but that doesn't prevent the presumption from being made. For example, if your car is caught on camera going through a red light, you're presumed to be the driver and get the ticket. The burden then shifts to you to prove that you were not in fact the driver.

Among the points made by Eros were a) the denial of the right to confront and cross-examine adversarial witnesses, b) the presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle is guilty, regardless of who was actually driving, thereby destroying the presumption of innocence, c) an unverified chain of control of the alleged (photographic) evidence, and d) the lack of scientific reliability of the cameras to warrant unquestioned acceptance into evidence.

http://blog.motorists.org/four-winning-defenses/

 

[dorsetknob]

True, but that doesn't prevent the presumption from being made. For example, if your car is caught on camera going through a red light, you're presumed to be the driver and get the ticket. The burden then shifts to you to prove that you were not in fact the driver.

presumption from being made. is not the same as proof
is heresy classed as Proof

As one Ex UK Minister did in a similer case until he F**ked himself by shagging outside his marriage

He got away with it till the pissed off wife grassed him up during the divorce

 

[R-T-B]

As has been explained several times on this thread now by various people, no IP address can show the actual person who did the infringing download, no matter how accurate the logs are. Therefore they can't prove squat.

In America...

The posted is in Latvia. I betcha judges there disagree.

 

[twilyth]

presumption from being made. is not the same as proof
is heresy classed as Proof

As one Ex UK Minister did in a similer case until he F**ked himself by shagging outside his marriage

He got away with it till the pissed off wife grassed him up during the divorce

You may not like how some presumptions work, but they're legally binding nonetheless. In the red light example, your initial intuition might be that they can never prove who was actually driving the car. Courts realize that so they created the presumption. You could have a similar situation here.

 

[qubit]

In America...

The posted is in Latvia. I betcha judges there disagree.

Yeah, they might in a place like that - unless they can be bought off that is.

 

[xvi]

They will still be behind a router, which means it still doesn't work like that.

Possibly not. If I recall, IPv6 was designed to eliminate the need for NAT-type routers. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but I suspect it will stop becoming the norm.

That would mean the entire internet infrastructure is only composed of switches and no routers. That is not the case and will never be the case. NAT is here to stay because it is impractical to connect a thousand devices to thousand discreet internet connections. Addtionaly, it makes more sense to have one great corporate firewall than a lousy firewall on a thousand devices. The structure of the internet today is the way it would have naturally evolved even if IPv6 existed before IPv4.

IPv6 is being pushed out to ISPs so there's more room for wireless devices. It will eventually proliferate through consumers but that won't eliminate NATs. Even then, it's irrelevant because even if every device had a globally static IP, it is still difficult to prove who was using the device at the time the alleged crime was committed.

In the case that a non-NAT firewall/switch is being used, the ISP's router would know the MAC associated with the IP. That MAC could be used to immediately identify the manufacturer of the device and, if physically searched, the exact device used.

In any case, I'm surprised the account holder isn't simply responsible for anything across the connection. I'm not suggesting that's how it should work (since I think that's completely ridiculous), but it's how I'd expect it to work.

 

[Easo]

Yeah, they might in a place like that - unless they can be bought off that is.

Oh... I guess there is no point in discussion with you. After all, i am from "place like that".

 

[qubit]

Oh... I guess there is no point in discussion with you. After all, i am from "place like that".

I'm not criticising you, but it is a reflection of the corruption in a country. Sure, every country has corruption, but it's a lot worse in some others. Hence, if they're going to nail people on non-evidence, then that's pretty corrupt.

 

[R-T-B]

I too meant no offense by calling your country out. I just meant that the justice department there could use some work. I am by no means trying to call Latvia a bad country.