
Judge decides torrent user's IP address is an identifier - dsr_
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2016/08/judge-locke-denies-motion-to-quash-in.html
======
flashman
Not the case mentioned in the OP, but a similar one:
[https://www.scribd.com/document/319728448/NJD-15-Cv-02250-KM...](https://www.scribd.com/document/319728448/NJD-15-Cv-02250-KM-
MAH-Document-17)

> 'Absent any evidence to the contrary, it is generally true that "the
> Defendant's failure to answer evinces the Defendant's culpability in [the]
> default." _Id._ Here, there is some doubt as to whether the person named as
> defendant is indeed the culpable party. He is identified essentially as the
> person who corresponds to a certain IP address. Electronically, of course,
> an IP address connects to a device, not a person, and it is impossible to
> tell from subscriber information who the device user was. It could be, for
> example, that someone else in the household (or for that matter someone
> pirating wireless service) is the actual infringer. That said, there seems
> to be a good faith basis for naming the particular individual ... The named
> defendant could have responded with a denial but defaulted instead."

At least in the case above, the question of who was the likely user has been
considered and the defendant's (in)action found relevant.

~~~
nihonde
It sounds like the judge was more annoyed that the defendant didn't answer,
and any use of this case as precedent would have to take that into account.

