IP addresses have real uses when it comes to identifying Internet activity, but they work best when paired with targeted investigation rather than as “spray-and-pray” shotgun-style federal litigation. Case in point: The Hurt Locker lawsuit, in which film producers Voltage Pictures have partnered with Virginia lawyers Dunlap, Grubb, and Weaver to pursue thousands of file-sharers who allegedly exchanged copies of the movie. The case has ground on for more than a year already, and the DC District Court’s docket is absolutely stuffed with letters from across the country, many claiming total innocence.

The letters have all fallen on the deaf ears of Beryl Howell, the RIAA lobbyist-turned-federal-judge who took over the case several months back. Howell has consistently denied these objections, saying that the only proper time to make them is later in the case after defendants have been individually named.

It’s impossible to vet the claims made in these letters, of course, but they do remind us just how opaque IP addresses can be; trying to use them like a window through which you can peek to see a particular downloader hunched over a screen is often futile. What you see instead is a machine—a router or wireless access point—that often tells you surprisingly little about who might have “done it.” Here’s a collection of just some of the many objections filling the Hurt Locker docket. Confusion is palpable in many of them as people wonder why they’re being targeted and struggle to figure out what an “open WiFi network” is and why it might cause them problems.

The Pinestead Reef Resort in Traverse City, Michigan:

We object to the suit given the fact that we operate a Timeshare resort named Pinstead Brief Resort that is 46 units all of which have a Wi-Fi connection using our IP address. We have numerous users at various times and are unable to monitor or control what they are doing on the computer in their room I can assure you that the movie was not downloaded from any of the 5 computers that we use in our office on a daily basis.

Michelle from Farmington, Minnesota:

I did not download this movie. I had a wireless router on my computer at the time the Plaintiff alleges that their movie was downloaded by my IP address. Charter had notified me at that time that the download may have been done from my IP address and I removed the wireless router to avoid any further activity.

Steven from Cleveland, Tennessee:

I have no idea why my account info/IP address is associated with this action. I have not downloaded nor certainly have not [sic] distributed any copyrighted material such as “Hurt Locker,” named in this action.

MidAtlanticBroadband Hospitality Services of Baltimore, Maryland:

MidAtlanticBroadband Hospitality Services is filing an objection to provide information as our information is irrelevant, as we are not the end-user nor do we have any information related to the actual usage of this IP address.

Ryan from Waunakee, Wisconsin:

I have no knowledge of the alleged movie download. I had a problem with my network security settings in the past which has recently been upgraded and password-protected. I am sorry for any damages or misfortune the Plaintiff has incurred.

A woman named Sarah, no address given:

I am objecting to the disclosure and release of my identifying information by Charter Communications Inc. on the grounds that I’m not the owner nor have I ever owned the computer with the MAC IP address [sic] that they are claiming illegally downloaded the copyrighted work. When this download took place I was living in a college apartment with roommates and we all shared the wireless network. I had opened the account and my roommates each paid me a portion of the monthly bill since we all shared the same wireless network. When I contacted Charter Communications Inc. regarding the subpoena to inform them they had the wrong person named for the download they said it could have been anyone in the apartment complex and that I was named as a potential defendant due to my being the one that set up the account.

Ann from St. Louis, Missouri:

As a soon to be 70-year-old woman, I can assure the court that I have neither downloaded or distributed ANY copyrighted work as alleged in this lawsuit. Thank you for your consideration.

Rick from St. Louis, Missouri:

I did not download this movie. From a telephone conversation with Charter Communications’ technical customer service I learned it is possible someone outside my home may have compromised the IP address and downloaded the movie without my knowledge. Charter further advised me to place a lock on the wireless router to help prevent people from hacking into the system and using my IP address. This has now been done. Take pay cuts over the past years, having a disabled wife and struggling to support a family, I do not have the money to hire an attorney to protect myself especially in this case where I did nothing wrong.

Ed from Sauk Rapids, Minnesota:

Up until currently my wireless router had only the default security set and no encryption enabled. I live in a large neighborhood where many people could have purposely or inadvertently connected to this access point. My children are 11 and 7 and are not computer savvy to be able to do this. I have also spoken to them about piracy of media since. I do apologize to the complainant that connection [sic] was involved in this activity.

Gabriel from San Gabriel, California:

All of the equipments [sic] in our home have been provided and connected by Charter Communications, Inc. I do not own any wireless equipment. I do not download movies or music from any computer or any equipment. I do not engage in copying music or movies. I am not in the business of selling any form of media. I have not had any guests that engage in any illegal activities. I strongly oppose all illegal copying of any copyrighted materials.

Arcadiana Cable Advertising from Opelousas, Louisiana:

We’re a small company with 6 employees, and do not have any sort of IT personnel, therefore, our wireless router is not a password-protected router. We have seen several individuals in the parking lot obviously using our unprotected service. Furthermore, the time of infringement was 7:40 AM. Our business opens daily at 8:30 AM, thereby making that time highly suspect.

Richard from Peru, New York:

[Explaining a problem with his Vonage setup that Routinely required a router reset.] This process would open up our wireless network to anyone since it removed the encryption to our wireless network. Our wireless router could be open to the public for days before I would notice that it was not protected areas would normally caught my attention, that are wireless network was open, was how slow it was during typical web browsing I truly believe that no person that is part of my family downloaded the copyrighted work known as Hurt Locker. I have searched all the computers within my residence and have not found a file or folder with that name. I also know that is NOT a typical movie that my family members would watch. Being a Gulf War Veteran, I have no desire to watch such a movie. Just like the movie Blackhawk Down, I heard it was a good movie but I will never watch it, another movie that is too close to home. Currently we have purchased just over 500 DVD and Blue Ray [sic] movies which in itself should indicate that we support the movie industry. We also have a current Netflix account and a Charter account.

A clue



The issue isn’t limited to P2P litigation, either. The Electronic Frontier Foundation this week pointed out the story of a US resident raided by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for running a Tor exit node—a computer that dumps anonymized traffic from the Tor network back onto the public Internet. Officers traced some offending Internet activity back to the exit node’s IP address, but that traffic had nothing to do with the man who ran the node.

”An IP address doesn't automatically identify a criminal suspect,” wrote the EFF’s Marcia Hofmann. “Sometimes a router's IP address might correspond fairly well to a specific user—for example, a person who lives alone and has a password-protected wireless network But in many situations, an IP address isn't personally identifying at all.”

Calling an IP address no more than a “clue,” Hofmann suggests that “an IP address alone is not probable cause that a person has committed a crime. Furthermore, search warrants executed solely on the basis of IP addresses have a significant likelihood of wasting officers' time and resources rather than producing helpful leads.”

We’ve seen plenty of serious investigations, often involving child pornography, in which IP addresses proved decisive in linking a forum user’s online username to a real person. Others, unfortunately, have led to raids on the wrong home.

An IP address is a starting point for investigation, not evidence of guilt, but the current string of massive P2P file-sharing cases across the country aren’t relying on thorough investigation to make their claims; the “settle up now or risk $150,000 in court judgements and legal fees” letters fly out of the law offices behind these cases, and it is these settlements that are the true business model behind such fishing expeditions. When non-technical people are threatened with thousands of dollars in legal fees simply to assert their own innocence or even the court’s total lack of jurisdiction, settlement can look like a rational option even if you know nothing about the charges. Based on an IP address, this hardly sounds like robust justice, and it's no wonder that plenty of other judges not formerly employed by the entertainment industry have cut these cases off wholesale.