Important Appeals Court Ruling States Clearly That Merely Having An IP Address Is Insufficient For Infringement Claims

Important Appeals Court Ruling States Clearly That Merely Having An IP Address Is Insufficient For Infringement Claims

6 years ago
Anonymous $oIHRkISgaL

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180829/00360440535/important-appeals-court-ruling-states-clearly-that-merely-having-ip-address-is-insufficient-infringement-claims.shtml

Tons of copyright lawsuits (and even more copyright trolling shakedowns that never even reach court) are based on one single bit of data: the IP address. We've seen numerous district courts reject using a bare IP address as evidence of infringement, but now we have a very important (even if short and to the point) ruling in the 9th Circuit that could put a serious damper on copyright trolling.

In this copyright action, we consider whether a bare allegation that a defendant is the registered subscriber of an Internet Protocol (“IP”) address associated with infringing activity is sufficient to state a claim for direct or contributory infringement. We conclude that it is not.

Important Appeals Court Ruling States Clearly That Merely Having An IP Address Is Insufficient For Infringement Claims

Aug 29, 2018, 7:06pm UTC
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180829/00360440535/important-appeals-court-ruling-states-clearly-that-merely-having-ip-address-is-insufficient-infringement-claims.shtml > Tons of copyright lawsuits (and even more copyright trolling shakedowns that never even reach court) are based on one single bit of data: the IP address. We've seen numerous district courts reject using a bare IP address as evidence of infringement, but now we have a very important (even if short and to the point) ruling in the 9th Circuit that could put a serious damper on copyright trolling. > In this copyright action, we consider whether a bare allegation that a defendant is the registered subscriber of an Internet Protocol (“IP”) address associated with infringing activity is sufficient to state a claim for direct or contributory infringement. We conclude that it is not.