Slashdot Mirror
Craigslist Prankster Sued, Argues DMCA Abuse
destinyland writes "Though Sunday's New York Times dubbed him a spokesperson for internet trolls, Jason Fortuny's just been sued in federal court. Fortuny re-published over 180 responses to a fake sex ad on Craigslist in 2006 — but he's finally been located and issued with a summons. The victim argues Fortuny violated his privacy, and that the photo Fortuny re-published was copyrighted. Fortuny argues he re-published the photo to stand up to the victim's bogus DMCA notice, and that the gullible victim had voluntarily provided the photo. In a motion to the court Fortuny even argues that he helped publicize a privacy risk on the internet, whereas 'bringing legal action against me may punish me, but it won't change or even impact online culture.'"
Punishing one criminal
NEVER changes or impacts the culture.
But if you punish enough criminals, you DO change and impact the culture
And how exactly do you see the culture being impacted?
From where I sit, the USA claims to be the "free-est" nation, yet has the largest prison population. People haven't stopped taking drugs, committing petty crimes, assaulting each other, falling asleep at the wheel, felonies haven't gone away, white collar crime is a game of 'catch me if you can', etc etc etc.
That said, I disagree with your notion that punishing one criminal does nothing. You send a top corporate executive to jail and it sends a very clear signal to the rest. The impact directly relates to the pool of those who could possibly be affected.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If it would get rid of the editors too, then yes.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
as the first 3 involve an exchange of money for sex, which is illegal
and by "acceptable" i mean acceptable by current prevailing societal norms. my own personal norms finds nothing wrong with prostitution, as long as it is highly regulated to prevent abuse, human trafficking, disease, etc.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
is clearly an exercise in vigilante justice
http://www.google.com/search?q=fortuny+vigilante
i don't know why you find it so difficult to accept the word's usage in this manner, it is clearly within the realm of valid meaning for the word. i don't know why you think you have a point to prove
are you something like a grammar nazi? am i going to get a citation from the dictionary police? (snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Hang my head in shame. Exactly. And then I'll try to figure out a way to get you back. Taking a prankster to court is admission of stupidity and powerlessness - a shameful way out and a last resort.