Non pensavo avrei visto il giorno nel quale gli eredi di Perry Mason arringassero la corte su cosa sia un indirizzo IP.
I due post che seguono (raccomando la lettura del primo di cui riporto un breve stralcio) mettono in evidenza la possibilità che si arrivi a conclusioni differenti tra USA e EU sulla spinosa questione della attribuibilità dell'indirizzo IP ad una persona. La difesa della persona accusata dalla RIAA (dalle case discografiche) di aver condiviso illegalmente contenuti in rete tramite KaZaa, sostiene che un indirizzo IP identifichi un apparato (in questo caso un Home Gateway) e non una persona. La questione è dedicata, perché l'accettazione di questo principio implicherebbe la non diretta imputabilità di un reato all'intestatario di un indirizzo IP, cosa che, al contrario sembra sia la dottrina accettata dall'Unione Europea.
According to the amended complaint, "Plaintiffs identified an individual using on the P2P network KaZaA at IP address 67.9.63.16 2005-10-29 on October 29, 2005 at 03:22:51 distributing 361 audio files over the Internet." But Jacobson testified that SafeNet, the RIAA's investigator, is incapable of identifying an individual.
Here's the relevant testimony from Thomas' attorneys' cross-examination.
Q. Are you aware of any evidence of anything that would point to [Defendant] personally having done something as opposed to any other person?
MR. GABRIEL: Objection to the form. Lack of foundation.
A. I have examined evidence that shows 12 that the computer registered to the IP address 13 belonging to [Defendant] was used to share copyrighted material.
Q. But other than that, other than the fact that the computer was used, as you say, is there any evidence to show what natural person, what individual was the one who actually did it?
A. No. Luck also includes testimony from one of Jacobson's depositions.
Q. The IP address alone would not tell you that, would it?
A. Would not tell you what? Q. What individual was sharing files.
A. By "individual" do you mean flesh-and-blood person?
Q. Yes.
A. The IP address tells you the identity of the computer.
Q. It actually doesn't tell you the identity of the computer. It tells you the identity of the device.
A. That's correct... The IP address delivers to a device or location.
Q. But not a person?
A. That's correct.
Luck argues that, at best, the labels have "identified an internet location where infringing activity" took place, which he compares to identifying a defendant by means of a street address. Of course, once it is in possession of an IP address, the RIAA files a John Doe lawsuit and then obtains an ex parte subpoena to discover the name and address of the person who was assigned that IP address. (And sometimes, that person played no role whatsoever in the alleged infringement.) But the complaints used by the RIAA don't reflect that. The RIAA's investigators didn't identify an individual in Atlantic v. Njuguna, as the complaint says, merely the IP address of a piece of Internet-facing hardware like a cable or DSL modem. They may also be able to get the IP address of the device directly connected to the hardware, which could be a PC, laptop, wireless router, or something else. Either way, it's not an individual, and the RIAA's lack of precision in its complaints is troubling. [From P2P defendant: RIAA identified an IP address, not a person]
Could IP addresses soon be considered "personal information" in Europe? The question was discussed yesterday at a hearing before the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee, where European data protection authorities and privacy advocates backed the idea. Google, not surprisingly, wasn't as thrilled. [From IP addresses could become "personal information" in Europe]
Commenti