8 ms·

The court holds that the plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable evidence the defendant was the person using the computer. In this particular case, the defendant

The court holds that the plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable evidence the defendant was the person using the computer. In this particular case, the defendant ran what amounts to lodging, was deposed, and it was immediately figured out it wasn't him. The complicating factor is that because his lodging was medical in nature, he was not able to hand over guest information. I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL"

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
The facts of the actual case make it much easier to understand the problem, but how is that situation actually different? There are still multiple people it could have been, no evidence is presented to distinguish between them at all and it's an obvious injustice to punish one person when it was another who did it.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  How do you know it wasn't a nearby neighbour piggybacking on your wifi?
  - rootw0rm 8y ago
    because wifi is reasonably secure by default these days?
    - mmt 8y ago
      That notion is conradicted by numerous articles about WPA2 cracks. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=wpa&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story&authorText=false https://hn.algolia.com/?query=wpa&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&...
  - a1369209993 8y ago
    You don't, that's the point; claiming "the criminals had mail sent to 1342 Grass Lane, therefore the owner of 1342 Grass Lane is the criminal" is patently ridiculous, and it's good that the court realizes that the same applies (if anything, even more so) to IP addresses.
saagarjha 8y ago
> I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL" Well, the question is whether I'm responsible for the use of my computer network. If someone hacks into it and starts using it without me noticing, am I responsible?
- zaroth 8y ago
  No, unlike something like a firearm which you are legally required to secure and can suffer potentially criminal and/or civil liability if someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime, there is no such legal requirement to secure your network against outsider misuse. IANAL that’s just my personal understanding / belief. The key point would be the use would have to be unsanctioned and you were totally unaware. Once you give someone your WiFi password, it’s less clear if you have any liability. I’m not sure of any case where the actual user was known but the person who provided the network connection was blamed. Network access is fairly universal. The particular method used to access the Internet is practically irrelevant. The actor and the act are what is important, not how the packets are routed.
  - lostapathy 8y ago
    I believe the legal term you’re looking for is “strict liability”. Many states don’t actually have laws about securing firearms directly but have a concept of strict liability about what happens if they are stolen, or stolen and not reported.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      Thanks, this is super helpful terminology to know.
  - chillwaves 8y ago
    > you are legally required to secure and can suffer potentially criminal and/or civil liability if someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime Where does this happen?
  - 8y ago
onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL" Why not? It's illegal to download a movie and they have to prove what person did it. Roommate, father, sister...neighbor.
- masonic 8y ago
  This is a civil suit, not a criminal case.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    A civil suit still requires 51% Multiple users will cut that percentage up pretty quickly.
  - jdc 8y ago
    Disclaimer: IANAL To clarify, the plaintiff does have to prove it was the defendant that wronged them, but instead the standard of proof being "beyond a reasonable doubt" it's something like on "the balance of probabilities."
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    unless the law says "it's your internet connection and you're responsible for what happens" I doubt it matters that much. Standard of proof is much lower but still have to prove that x most likely downloaded the movie.
    - anticensor 8y ago
      > unless the law says "it's your internet connection and you're responsible for what happens" Most subscription contracts have a clause to that effect.
      - delecti 8y ago
        That's a contract with the provider. I'm responsible to Comcast if my connection is used to download 17 TB of data on a metered subscription, even if I was hacked. That contract doesn't leave me responsible for anything except between me and Comcast.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

The facts of the actual case make it much easier to understand the problem, but how is that situation actually different? There are still multiple people it could have been, no evidence is presented to distinguish between them at all and it's an obvious injustice to punish one person when it was another who did it.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
How do you know it wasn't a nearby neighbour piggybacking on your wifi?
- rootw0rm 8y ago
  because wifi is reasonably secure by default these days?
  - mmt 8y ago
    That notion is conradicted by numerous articles about WPA2 cracks. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=wpa&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story&authorText=false https://hn.algolia.com/?query=wpa&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&...
- a1369209993 8y ago
  You don't, that's the point; claiming "the criminals had mail sent to 1342 Grass Lane, therefore the owner of 1342 Grass Lane is the criminal" is patently ridiculous, and it's good that the court realizes that the same applies (if anything, even more so) to IP addresses.

saagarjha 8y ago

> I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL" Well, the question is whether I'm responsible for the use of my computer network. If someone hacks into it and starts using it without me noticing, am I responsible?

zaroth 8y ago
No, unlike something like a firearm which you are legally required to secure and can suffer potentially criminal and/or civil liability if someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime, there is no such legal requirement to secure your network against outsider misuse. IANAL that’s just my personal understanding / belief. The key point would be the use would have to be unsanctioned and you were totally unaware. Once you give someone your WiFi password, it’s less clear if you have any liability. I’m not sure of any case where the actual user was known but the person who provided the network connection was blamed. Network access is fairly universal. The particular method used to access the Internet is practically irrelevant. The actor and the act are what is important, not how the packets are routed.
- lostapathy 8y ago
  I believe the legal term you’re looking for is “strict liability”. Many states don’t actually have laws about securing firearms directly but have a concept of strict liability about what happens if they are stolen, or stolen and not reported.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    Thanks, this is super helpful terminology to know.
- chillwaves 8y ago
  > you are legally required to secure and can suffer potentially criminal and/or civil liability if someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime Where does this happen?
- 8y ago

onetimemanytime 8y ago

>>I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL" Why not? It's illegal to download a movie and they have to prove what person did it. Roommate, father, sister...neighbor.

masonic 8y ago
This is a civil suit, not a criminal case.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  A civil suit still requires 51% Multiple users will cut that percentage up pretty quickly.
- jdc 8y ago
  Disclaimer: IANAL To clarify, the plaintiff does have to prove it was the defendant that wronged them, but instead the standard of proof being "beyond a reasonable doubt" it's something like on "the balance of probabilities."
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  unless the law says "it's your internet connection and you're responsible for what happens" I doubt it matters that much. Standard of proof is much lower but still have to prove that x most likely downloaded the movie.
  - anticensor 8y ago
    > unless the law says "it's your internet connection and you're responsible for what happens" Most subscription contracts have a clause to that effect.
    - delecti 8y ago
      That's a contract with the provider. I'm responsible to Comcast if my connection is used to download 17 TB of data on a metered subscription, even if I was hacked. That contract doesn't leave me responsible for anything except between me and Comcast.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]