Florida District Court Judge: IP-Address Proof Is Insufficient To Show Who Has Downloaded Pirated Movie

While moderately under-reported, numerous U.S. locale courts are still overwhelmed with claims against asserted film privateers.

One of the newcomers not long from now are the producers of the activity film Manny. In the course of recent months "Manny Film" has recorded 215 claims over a few locale.

Like all copyright holders, the producers of the film depend on IP-addresses as proof. They then request that the courts allow a subpoena, compelling Internet suppliers to hand over the individual subtle elements of the related record holders.

Much of the time the courts approve these solicitations, yet in Florida this isn't as clear.

At the point when District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro was doled out a Manny Film case she requested that the organization clarify how an IP-location can pinpoint the real individual who downloaded a pilfered film. What's more, she requesting that they demonstrate that geolocation instruments are sufficient to demonstrate that the claimed privateer lives in the Court's area.

In a definite answer the movie producers contended that IP-address can distinguish the respondent and that a refusal to concede a subpoena would set an "unsafe point of reference." Manny Film further expressed that "all different courts" couldn't help contradicting the idea that an IP-address is not an individual.

This last comment didn't run down well with Judge Ungaro. In a request passed on not long from now she refers to different situations where courts decided that IP-address don't generally recognize the affirmed guilty parties.

“Due to the risk of ‘false positives,’ an allegation that an IP address is registered to an individual is not sufficient in and of itself to support a claim that the individual is guilty of infringement,” noted the Judge citing a 2012 case, one of many examples.

The referenced cases obviously negate Manny Film's case that all different courts couldn't help contradicting the Judge Ungaro's worries, and the Judge is not persuaded by any of alternate contentions either.

“As in those cases, Plaintiff here fails to show how geolocation software can establish the identity of the Defendant. Specifically, there is nothing linking the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing the copy righted material and nothing establishing that the person actually lives in this district,” Judge Ungaro wrote.

“Even if this IP address is located within a residence, geolocation software cannot identify who have access to that residence’s computer and who would actually be using it to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright,” she added.

Therefore, the Court declined to issue a subpoena and released the body of evidence against IP-address 66.229.140.101 for uncalled for venue.

While not all judges may reach the same conclusion, the request makes it harder for rightholders to play their "copyright troll" conspire in the Southern District of Florida. In the meantime, it furnishes future litigants with a decent diagram to battle comparative claims somewhere else.