L’indirizzo IP non individua una persona

In un’azione di violazione di copyright promossa nel distretto di New York il Giudice Gary R. Brown ha affermato che l’indirizzo IP non identifica con certezza il soggetto che ha commesso un illecito ma identifica soltanto la localizzazione di un determinato apparecchio. La decisione (Case 2:11-cv-03995-DRH-GRB) è molto importante in quanto segna un punto a favore nella lotta contro le c.d. “copyright troll” ovvero contro le cause che alcune società depositano in massa nei confronti di un gruppo di utenti internet al fine di spingerli singolarmente a raggiungere un accordo al fine di evitare i costi di una difesa in giudizio. Queste cause talvolta, come nel caso di specie, si basano su presupposti vacillanti ed il Giudice ha invitati i ricorrenti a porre maggiore attenzione nell’individuazione dei soggetti che possano avere commesso un illecito. Riportiamo qui di seguito il passo della decisione sul punto: “An IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones. As one introductory guide states: If you only connect one computer to the Internet, that computer can use the address from your ISP. Many homes today, though, use routers to share a single Internet connection between multiple computers. Wireless routers have become especially popular in recent years, avoiding the need to run network cables between rooms. If you use a router to share an Internet connection, the router gets the IP address issued directly from the ISP. Then, it creates and manages a subnet for all the computers connected to that router.4 Thus, it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function – here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film – than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call. Indeed, due to the increasingly popularity of wireless routers, it much less likely. While a decade ago, home wireless networks were nearly non-existent, 61% of US homes now have wireless access.5 Several of the ISPs at issue in this case provide a complimentary wireless router as part of Internet service. As a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices – which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals. See U.S. v. Latham, 2007 WL 4563459, at *4 (D.Nev. Dec. 18, 2007). Different family members, or even visitors, could have performed the alleged downloads.”