Court Allows Unmasking of P2P Downloaders

bricko writes "A federal appeals court says copyright-infringing downloaders can now be outed. If you use or have used P2P, this may interest you. From Wired: 'The RIAA detected what it claimed to be infringing activity on an IP address the university linked to the student. The unidentified student moved to quash a federal judge’s order that the university forward the student’s identity to the RIAA. The student asserted a First Amendment right of privacy on the Internet, in addition to a fair-use right to the six music tracks in question. The appeals court ruled in the RIAA’s favor (PDF) after balancing a constitutional right to remain anonymous against a copyright owner’s right to disclosure of the identity of a possible “trespasser of its intellectual property interest."'"

Comments

Title is nonsense

[drinkypoo]

A better title would be "court upholds right to serve warrant".

Re:Title is nonsense

[bbqsrc]

I'd like them to definitively prove that he was the user behind the IP address.

Re:Title is nonsense

[mgessner]

I can see it being hard to prove that it was the student only if he had an open WiFi connection running at that time.

Lesson to be learned: if you're going to use P2P, make sure you have an open WiFi connection to throw a monkey wrench into "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Of course, once that defense is used commonly, there'll be a law passed that says you can't do that anymore... In fact, didn't I read something on /. about that in the past?

Re:Title is nonsense

[ThreeGigs]

Which can only be done in court. And which can only happen if the person whose account was using that IP address is known. And _that_ will only happen if copyright holders can subpoena ISPs for user identities.

So congrats, you're getting what you want.

Re:Title is nonsense

[SJ2000]

It's civil law, you don't have to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Re:Title is nonsense

[click2005]

Of course, once that defense is used commonly, there'll be a law passed that says you can't do that anymore... In fact, didn't I read something on /. about that in the past?

There was a story about the UK government wanting all WiFi owners to keep records/logs of users.
It'll be funny if they ever pass something like this considering how many people in the UK use a
ISP provided router like the BT HomeHub with open wifi and a default password.

Re:Title is nonsense

[Gordonjcp]

The BT Homehub doesn't ship with a default wifi password, or open wifi. Out of the box the first thing you must do before it will even pass wired traffic is change the admin password. It doesn't require you to change the SSID or default WPA key, which is a biggish string of alphanumerics generated by some pseudorandom process. The SSID and WPA card are supplied on a plastic card inside the box, and don't appear to be (trivially) derived from the MAC address or serial number.

Re:Title is nonsense

[DaveV1.0]

Except that in choosing to claim he may have had a fair use right to "share" the songs on the computer, he has admitted he was the person behind the IP address who had the songs on his computer.

Re:Title is nonsense

[Annymouse Cowherd]

Most ISPs have a clause saying that you are responsible for all traffic using your internet connection.

Re:Title is nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Most ISPs have a clause saying that you are responsible for all traffic using your internet connection.

Thankfully, everything in a contract is legally binding.

Re:Title is nonsense

[Gr8Apes]

But you can't be responsible for what some thief does with it, much the same as you are not responsible for what a thief does with you car....

(Yes, I'm aware that there are conditions on those statements. Let's pretend you didn't do anything to "enable" the thief)

Re:Title is nonsense

[commodore64_love]

This reminds me of members of the Liberty community who insist they don't have to pay income taxes. They use all kinds of legal arguments such as "my kids are my employees and I pay them, so I deduct that amount" or "I don't have a social security number so I don't need to pay," and so on.

Of course the judge immediately throws these arguments out. And the judge will likely throw out the "Somebody used my Wifi line to steal - it wasn't me" argument too. His goal is to enforce the law, not to let you escape.

Re:Title is nonsense

[click2005]

I remembered seeing a few stories about the BT HomeHub being weak.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3258-bt-to-close-remote-assistance-hole-on-home-hub.html
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/10/09/bt_home_hub_vuln/
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/201312/bt-home-hub-spits-out-password-to-hackers

Re:Title is nonsense

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

I'm no lawyer, but isn't the defendant allowed a defense in layers, even if those layers contradict each other? (I think there's a legal term for this but I can't seem to find it.) The defense would go something like: "It wasn't me. And if it was me, I had fair use rights to the songs in question."

Re:Title is nonsense

[coolsnowmen]

I'ld love to see them try and enforce that,
-- We can prove you were hacked
-- We can prove that hacker then did something illegal
-- We are suing you for your unwitting participation in this string of crimes.

Re:Title is nonsense

[lena_10326]

You do realize judges aren't morons and don't buy all these little bullshit "what if" excuses that are collaborated with zero evidence? You do realize in civil law the prosecution's burden is less than it is with criminal law? You do realize the one left holding the bag is the one who gets pinned with the blame? You do realize all the prosecution has to do is convince the judge/jury that you are likely guilty?

You are yet another slashdot fool pretending to have more legal smarts than you actually have. You spew idiotic--no I dare say it--dangerous advice to a mostly unsuspecting crowd. Maybe you should sit this one out. I get mighty sick of you arm chair lawyers.

Re:Title is nonsense

[DaveV1.0]

He is not saying "I didn't do it, it wasn't me". He is saying "I don't want them to know who I am because I think I have a right to privacy and anonymity" and "I had a valid fair use right to do it anyway."

And, he is not using this as a defense against the suit. He is using it as part of a motion to quash the subpoena.

Re:Title is nonsense

[DaveV1.0]

One other thing, fair use is a defense and the court gets to decide whether it is a valid defense. It is not, however, a reason to quash the subpoena because whether it falls under fair use is the question the court must decide.

Re:Title is nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize all the prosecution has to do is convince the judge/jury that you are likely guilty?

Please explain how it's "likely" it's me, when anyone within a hundred yards can connect to me wifi.

Let's see, if there are 15 houses within that radius, and 2/3 of them have computers, that's 10 other people besides me who could have done it. Not to mention people with laptops in the car driving by.

Please, explain how it's "likely" me when I'm one of 11 people who have potential access.

And that leaves aside the issue of proving, even if it is traced to a computer in my house, which user did it.

Re:Title is nonsense

[siride]

Still an idiotic argument. You *certainly* use your own router. You have no proof that these other people are doing it (and it's not "likely" that large numbers of people are using your router anyway). In the most likely case, it was *you* who did the downloading. If you want to propose that it's someone else, you will need to provide evidence for that. And the mere possibility that someone might have used your router doesn't seem to me to be strong evidence. In fact, I recall that there was a case where the BS open WiFi argument was quashed (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/04/child-porn-case-shows-that-an-open-wifi-network-is-no-defense.ars).

Re:Title is nonsense

[Deadstick]

#include "IANAL.h"

Yes: it's called "pleading in the alternative". In effect, the defense is saying "My client didn't do what the complainant accuses him of. But even if you decide he did, the complainant still has no case because the act is not unlawful."

rj

Re:Title is nonsense

[countertrolling]

Nothing very civil about that. Why should we make it any easier for some company clown to harass us than the government?

Re:Title is nonsense

[SJ2000]

Not that type of 'civil', Civil Law

Re:Title is nonsense

[RobertM1968]

I can see it being hard to prove that it was the student only if he had an open WiFi connection running at that time.

Or he was on a NAT device in his dorm room (like I suspect many dorms use), or a block of dorms on his floor were on a NAT device.

Lesson to be learned: if you're going to use P2P, make sure you have an open WiFi connection to throw a monkey wrench into "beyond a reasonable doubt."

That hasn't seemed relevant in any of these cases - possibly due to judges and juries not being familiar with how such things work. What one uneducated person thinks is "beyond reasonable doubt" can seem quite ridiculous to those of us here who are more tech savvy. We've seen that over the years as we've picked apart numerous fallacies in methods and/or proof in RIAA cases. Not to mention the times where the RIAA pushed forward even with overwhelming evidence that the "suspected infringer" was not the person they were suing.

Of course, once that defense is used commonly, there'll be a law passed that says you can't do that anymore... In fact, didn't I read something on /. about that in the past?

Probably... depends on where the RIAA's lobbying gets them. Though it's not too out of bounds with reality to expect people to secure their own wireless connections - especially since most routers suggest it or even ask the users to do it with an "opt out/cancel/disable security" option as the unselected choice. That'd make the more logical compromise being those who run open networks by choice, could be held liable for what they thusly allow to happen on their networks (unless they've got damn good reason to disable the security features on their wireless routers).

But any such law/ruling/etc would be ripe for abuse by the RIAA - just as the legal system currently is (or has been) by them.

Re:Title is nonsense

[RobertM1968]

LoL, I think countertrolling's post was an attempt at humor and/or a pun. As such, I found it humorous.

Re:Title is nonsense

[RobertM1968]

#include "IANAL.h"

Dude, I love that! I think I may haveta borrow that... :-)

Re:Title is nonsense

[FatdogHaiku]

I found it punny...

Re:Title is nonsense

[Kjella]

In fact, I recall that there was a case where the BS open WiFi argument was quashed (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/04/child-porn-case-shows-that-an-open-wifi-network-is-no-defense.ars).

I wonder if you have even read the link you post. They were convicted by the huge stacks of CDs in their room. It had nothing do to with "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of evidence", they tried to use their wifi as reason why the police had no "probable cause" and the warrant is invalid. A wifi network the police of course had no idea existed, so despite illegal material being traced to their IP the police should do nothing on the possibility that there be might an open wifi network that someone else might have used. This despite any sane person would see that this is the obvious lead where the police might find more evidence relevant to the case, whether it was them or someone on their wifi. If I had mod points I'd call this trolling.

Re:Title is nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

You *certainly* use your own router.

Not necessarily. I might offer free wifi to the neighborhood as a service. I don't use it, I let others use it. You know, like a lot of restaurants do these days. Or are you saying Starbucks is responsible for what their customers download??

You have no proof that these other people are doing it

I don't need "proof". The fact it was available is enough to cast doubt. It's like a murder being committed with my chainsaw... which I keep in an open, unlocked shed. Yes, I own the chainsaw, yes, it might have been me who used it to kill the victim. But it could also have been anyone else.

If you want to propose that it's someone else, you will need to provide evidence for that.

No, I don't. There mere fact it was possible it was someone else is enough to defeat the prosecutions contention that it was definitely me.

Add to this all the... problems the RIAA/MPAA have had with identifying and suing people (like suing dead people, or grannys who don't own computers, etc), and it's a 'not guilty' from anyone who has a clue.

Of course the problem is most people don't have a clue.

Re:Title is nonsense

[Gordonjcp]

The newest article there is two years old, and is talking about a vulnerability in a model of Homehub that was obsolete even then ;-)

Re:Title is nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a better title would be "JEWISH judge prosecutes anybody who isn't paying enough money to his JEWISH parasitic friends, who just happen to run your government and your media..."

Re:Title is nonsense

[billcopc]

You do realize judges aren't morons

I've been trying to come up with an intelligent rebuttal, but all I can think of is Corpus Christi, Texas - specifically Nueces County.

What's funny is Googling "corpus christi texas crooked judge" returns the Republican Party of Nueces County as the first result. Funny ho-ho.

Re:Title is nonsense

[vux984]

You *certainly* use your own router. You have no proof that these other people are doing it (and it's not "likely" that large numbers of people are using your router anyway). In the most likely case, it was *you* who did the downloading. If you want to propose that it's someone else, you will need to provide evidence for that.

You certainly use your own baseball bat. You have no proof other people use it. And its not "likely" that large numbers of people are using your baseball bat. In the most likely case, it was *you* who used the bat to bludgeon that homeless person to death.

So far so good.

If you want to propose its someone else, you will need to provided evidence for that.

er no. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The fact that I have evidence your baseball was used makes you a legitimate suspect, but I'll have to do better than that to tie you to the scene of the crime to get a conviction. You don't have to provide evidence someone else used it. I have to provide evidence it was you.

Re:Title is nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

When the punishment is lifetime indentured servitude, maybe it should be "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Re:Title is nonsense

[Thinboy00]

You don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt" for copyright infringement, just "preponderance of the evidence".

Re:Title is nonsense

[Thinboy00]

If it's so obvious, why don't the defense lawyers call lots of expert witnesses to show just how stupid the RIAA are?

Re:Title is nonsense

[vux984]

You don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt" for copyright infringement, just "preponderance of the evidence".

I'm aware of that, and I never said otherwise. The standard for "preponderance of evidence" is not met simply by virtue of owning an implement used in a crime.

Re:Title is nonsense

[RobertM1968]

If it's so obvious, why don't the defense lawyers call lots of expert witnesses to show just how stupid the RIAA are?

They do, they have and they are making ground. It's hard to win even with experts because of a lack of technical understanding on the part of judges and juries. Some courts (ie: states or locales) are actually working on tech programs for their courts to ensure judges are knowledgeable about the topics they will be presiding over.

In the meantime, with the RIAA equating an IP with a person and the defense needing to teach networking and a lot more to the judge and jury to refute it, the "defense bringing expert witnesses" part isnt quite as helpful as it should be.

Think how few (if any) cases the RIAA would win if the jury were made of slashdot members... we'd call bull on most of their tactics. Without the need for a defense witness trying to cram a few years (schooling/training/ and/or experience) worth of networking knowledge into our heads.

Yes, well ...

[ScrewMaster]

That judge better keep track of what his (or her, I didn't RTFA yet) kids are doing online. This is the kind of ruling that can come back to haunt them. Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.

Re:Yes, well ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, the schools will take care of that using the webcams in the laptops.

Re:Yes, well ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That judge better keep track of what his (or her, I didn't RTFA yet) kids are doing online. This is the kind of ruling that can come back to haunt them. Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.

No. They would just continue to postpone prosecution as long as they keep winning in that court.

Re:Yes, well ...

[PopeRatzo]

Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.

The case would never become a case.

These forced IP identifications are going to turn into great big fishing expeditions, where ISPs turn over lists of users data and the RIAA can play whack-a-mole.

Fuck the RIAA, and fuck any federal court asshole judge that would force ISPs to become snitches..

Re:Yes, well ...

[ScrewMaster]

Fuck the RIAA, and fuck any federal court asshole judge that would force ISPs to become snitches..

Incrementalism. There are a lot of people in government that admire the way the East Germans went about matters, and would like the U.S. to work along similar lines. They can't do it all at once, of course, but they can lay the groundwork.

Re:Yes, well ...

[westlake]

Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.

A cynical, lazy and dangerous assumption that is all too typically geek.

Spend some time talking to a kid whose father is a pastor, a policeman, a federal prosecutor or a strict "law and order" judge. It will help clear your head of such nonsense.

Re:Yes, well ...

[ScrewMaster]

Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.

A cynical, lazy and dangerous assumption that is all too typically geek.

Spend some time talking to a kid whose father is a pastor, a policeman, a federal prosecutor or a strict "law and order" judge. It will help clear your head of such nonsense.

Actually I've spoken to lawyers about it, and given the nature of the RIAA's operation, it's a very reasonable assumption, cynical or otherwise. They cherry-pick their cases. Spend some time reading about the RIAA's lawsuit mill: that will help clear your head of some obvious misunderstandings. Start with Ray Beckerman's blog, go from there.

Re:Yes, well ...

[uvajed_ekil]

That judge better keep track of what his (or her, I didn't RTFA yet) kids are doing online. This is the kind of ruling that can come back to haunt them. Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.

Yeah, file-sharing has become kind of like speeding when not in heavy traffic, or smoking pot in California - it may be technically illegal, but tons and tons of people do it on a small scale without profiting much from it or causing any major, immediate harm to their neighbors, so it is generally ignored, and there is no peer pressure not to. Once in a while someone gets in trouble for these things, but most of the time most people don't, and few people prioritize the respective laws very highly. The times they have'a changed, and legality does not necessarily define social acceptability. The difference here is that the RIAA/MPAA pack it in and head for the hills when they see a challenge, unlike the Feds in a lil' ol' weed case, because precedent is a major concern for Big Media, while federal law is pretty clear.

How can he claim a right to privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of how you feel about copyright, let's be honest here: The "right to privacy" is a bullshit excuse when you're involved in what is, more or less, a community activity.

I think we've lost sight of the bare metal workings of what the founding fathers meant them to be.

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy?

[Dunbal]

OK, so you're fine with the federal government listening in to any conversation you have with your friends? That's a "community". But hey, you know, it could be justified, because your friends and you could be a terrorist sleeper cell. And when you go to the game, the park or the bar, perhaps you're conspiring to bring down the government. Or maybe conspiring to lend him a DVD and break intellectual property laws. So it's a good idea to automatically eavesdrop on any conversation. What's more in the digital age, with computer voice recognition and word recognition, all of your conversations can be automatically screened for key words.

And BY THE WAY, any other thought crime you might commit (like speaking against the government, admitting minor laws you broke, threatening someone, etc) WILL be enforced because after all it's a hell of a lot easier to go after YOU and make an example of YOU, than say some illegal immigrant running a drug smuggling operation who is loaded with guns and has nothing to lose.

We're not there YET, but suddenly the above scenario doesn't seem so far away, and so far fetched. America of today is NOT the America I grew up in. In fact with aggressive police, ridiculous punishments for ridiculous offenses (drawing on school desks, making "finger guns", posting "mooninites" on highway overpasses), and covert surveillance everywhere, it looks a lot like what we used to say Soviet Russia was like. Make sure to get your permit from the municipality before you paint your house comrade. We must ensure you use an approved color.

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy?

[DaveV1.0]

You fail at your argument because you are using false dichotomy, slippery slope, appeal to emotion, and appeal to fear. It is just one big fallacy.

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy?

[Dunbal]

You fail at your argument because you are using false dichotomy, slippery slope, appeal to emotion, and appeal to fear. It is just one big fallacy.

      I have lived a lifetime. You have not. I remember what America WAS. You do not. You think the slippery slope isn't real? Ok, wait.

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy?

[The Hatchet]

He does commit great fallacies, but an improper argument does not imply its results are wrong.

The fact is that our online interactions can be as private as husband/wife interactions, doctor/patient interactions, or lawyer/client interactions (which are all protected heavily by law). And if you are snooping a connection, you get it all, and violate that privacy regardless of how little you are searching for. We have the right to peaceful assembly, and last time I checked that didn't come with a clause saying "monitored by the government" after it.

And we do live in a damn police state (USA) whether you want to believe it or not. Children can be sent to prison at the whim of the school principle. Curfews. Drug war. Internet monitoring. Reduction of probable cause to reasonable suspicion to 'he looked funny'. Hell, in middle school I was bullied, and because of 0 tolerance policy they told me for being bullied 5 times I was involved in 5 events and could either go to juvenile detention or anger management. Virtually everything we do is controlled too far.

Have you ever actually tried to walk around and find a place where you could not be seen by cameras? They are incredibly rare. Traffic cams, if you are within 15ft. of a schools property you can easily be seen, any atm, any commercial building. This has been true whether I was in Fascist NY state, hicktown PA, Nowhere OH, Illinois or Missouri. Try just living at home. Want to walk from the shower to the bedroom naked? Don't, someone could be looking in your windows and press charges, and you could be classified as a sexual predator and the rest of your life is ruined. The standards for searches are practically non-existent, illegally obtained evidence is always used, and your local municipality can tell you what brand of toothpaste you are allowed to buy. We are living in this RIGHT NOW. No slippery slope to the future, no appeal to fear, no false dichotomy. I can walk out my door or IM a friend and this is happening. No two ways about it.

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy?

[countertrolling]

...false dichotomy, slippery slope, appeal to emotion, and appeal to fear.

The best tools available to get bad law passed the plebes...

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy?

[RobertM1968]

Regardless of how you feel about copyright, let's be honest here: The "right to privacy" is a bullshit excuse when you're involved in what is, more or less, a community activity.

I think we've lost sight of the bare metal workings of what the founding fathers meant them to be.

I am not saying I agree with either point, but there is a second point that follows your basis but is contradictory to your conclusion. the "right to privacy" is a valid excuse for all of those outside the community you believe you have an expectation of privacy within. Similar to how if you went to group therapy, you would expect (either legally (therapists) or "morally" (other group participants)) that you should have a right to privacy covering your interactions within that group/community.

Again, I'm not stating a stance on either. I am simply pointing out that there is a counter-argument - whichever turns out to become the prevalent "legal belief" will need to counter the other belief (or lobby it into unimportance or provide sufficient legal standing to make it less important).

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy?

[DaveV1.0]

I have not lived a life time? Please, tell me how old I am as you seem to know. Please tell me what I do and do not know and what I have and have not seen, as you seem to think you know.

Please tell me how long a lifetime you have lived and we shall see.

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy?

[DaveV1.0]

an improper argument does not imply its results are wrong.

A fallacious argument DOES imply that the results are wrong. Suggesting otherwise is foolishness.

We have the right to peaceful assembly, and last time I checked that didn't come with a clause saying "monitored by the government" after it.

Show me where is says that government monitoring of such peaceful assembly is absolutely prohibited.

Try just living at home. Want to walk from the shower to the bedroom naked? Don't, someone could be looking in your windows and press charges, and you could be classified as a sexual predator and the rest of your life is ruined.

That is false.

Have you ever actually tried to walk around and find a place where you could not be seen by cameras?

It is not hard where I live or where my family lives. Maybe you are just paranoid.

The standards for searches are practically non-existent, illegally obtained evidence is always used, and your local municipality can tell you what brand of toothpaste you are allowed to buy.

Citations needed.

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy?

[Dylan16807]

A fallacious argument DOES imply that the results are wrong. Suggesting otherwise is foolishness.

No, a fallacious argument doesn't go for or against what it concludes, it is merely there. If I claim that 1 + 1 = 2 because fish, the failed argument does not imply it isn't 2.

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, in middle school I was bullied, and because of 0 tolerance policy they told me for being bullied 5 times I was involved in 5 events and could either go to juvenile detention or anger management.

Ahahahah. That's retarded.

Why don't you guys change things around there?

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy?

[DaveV1.0]

1 + 1 = 2 is not an argument. It is a literal fact.
"fish" is not an argument.

I was going to make a quick comment but have decided to correct your misconceptions.

Yes, it is possible to come to the correct conclusion using faulty logic, but it is very unlikely and it would only matter if both parties agreed on the conclusion. However, in this case, we do not. You agree with him, so to you it does not matter that his reasoning faulty, but to me, who does not agree with his conclusion, it matters a great deal.

Consider:

1. All As are Bs
2. All Cs are Bs

Are all As Cs?

Now, if one knows all As are in fact Cs, using just the facts above and coming to the conclusion that all As are Cs is OK even if the reasoning is false (Bs may contain to non-overlapping sets of items, As and Cs). But, if one does not know or believe that all As are Cs, then the reasoning if false and the conclusion is unsupported. There is no reason to believe from the evidence given that all As are Cs.

In this case, the poster made a statement and backed it up with fallacies. I do not agree with his statement and showed him why I do not agree with him.

A fallacious argument does not support its conclusion. As the conclusion is in question, there is no reason to believe his conclusion.

A Constitutional what now?

[Rogerborg]

I'm poring over the United States Constitution, as Amended, and I can't find where it grants a right to anonymity, either from the Federal government, or from other citizens. Can any confused hippies^W^W Constitutional scholars help me out here?

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[portnux]

At least terrorists, pornographers and mass-murderers are still protected.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[gclef]

Anonymity and political speech have been connected for quite a bit of the US' history, starting even from before independence: many of the messages pushing for independence from the UK were sent around as anonymous pamphlets. So, while it may not be explicitly mentioned the inferred right to privacy and the tradition on anonymous free speech does exist. Whether either of these are applicable to a college kid sharing music is a whole other story, though.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Derosian]

I'm not a confused hippie constitutional scholar but I did just take a political science class. The teacher talked about something called precedent and about unwritten or "unenumerated" rights. The 9th Amendment counsels against dismissing such rights. The actual right to privacy was handed down in Roe v. Wade when the supreme court ruled in the favor of Norma McCorvey saying she had a right to privacy in general, and a right to abortion more specifically. Of course the right to an abortion is not equal throughout the entire pregnancy term as I am sure you know.

So don't be so quick to toss away your unwritten rights, yes you do have them, and accept that the consitution is not the final paper on where your rights are. Start looking at court cases too.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Kjella]

This is what the supreme court said in 1995:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

That's not to say that everyone doing anything bad is protected by anonymity. But it should put strong bonds on whether the government can force a company (your ISP) to disclose your personal information to a third party. For example imagine that someone anonymous is coming with scolding political criticism and you file a slander case against them, not with any intent of winning only with the intent of exposing that person. But no, the word "anonymity" is not in the constitution so the question is very much real and on topic. Shame on the moderators.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Bragador]

Implying pornographers are a bad thing.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Smallpond]

I'm poring over the United States Constitution, as Amended, and I can't find where it grants a right to anonymity, either from the Federal government, or from other citizens. Can any confused hippies^W^W Constitutional scholars help me out here?

How about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So where in the Constitution does it give the government the power to invade my privacy?

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

or maybe that terrorists and mass murderers are good things.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Kjella]

However, even so privacy and anonymity are not entirely the same. I think it's most obvious if you compare "private letter" with "anonymous letter". Privacy protects the contents, anonymity the sender. Most of the privacy rights come from a reading of the 14th amendment that the state may not restrict your liberty. Some various supreme court quotes:

"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'

All of those deal with whether the state can regulate your personal life. There aren't really that many cases on whether you have a right to be anonymous while doing it.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[DaveV1.0]

Article 1 Section 8 "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Article 3 Section 1 "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

USC 28A Rule 45 is the law concerning subpoenas in civil trials, which this case is.

As the making of copyright law is a power of Congress, the power to make law concerning copyright law is delegated to the federal government and not the states.

You have failed on multiple levels.

Now, please post the article and section of the Constitution of the United States where it says that you have an absolute right to privacy and anonymity.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[DaveV1.0]

In other words, it does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, and thus is not an absolute right and so this guy's argument about having a "First Amendment right to privacy" is bullshit.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[DaveV1.0]

Unfortunately, this is not about political discourse. This is about copyright law and civil litigation of same. The right to anonymous speech is not absolute, even in "democratic discourse" and political speech, ex: Someone states he is going to kill the President. In this case, a person is accused of violating the copyrights held by a different "person". That is not "democratic discourse" anymore than threatening or expressing a will to kill a government official.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Bearhouse]

Implying pornographers are a bad thing.

Many, of course, are not bad 'things', or even bad people, (unless you are morally /religiously against pornography, in which case pornographers are de facto 'bad'. Some, however, are very nasty 'things' indeed, preying on the young, weak, poor, drug-addicted...

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Bragador]

Sure, I knew that, but those are far from being the norm. So, why generalize? Anyway, your explanation seems to be targeted at pimps, not filmmakers.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[The Hatchet]

It is not in there. Never has been, but in the USA we have something called precedent, which often matters more than the word of the law. Several major supreme court cases have Came down on the side of freedom and privacy.

The real question is, what kind of asshat doesn't want that? If you have no right to privacy, then you must be perfectly 100% in line with every single law, even while you have sex and shower and sleep.naked inside your own home? nope. Masturbating? Nope. sex in any position besides missionary or oral sex? Death by hanging.

You don't think anyone should have the right to freedom and privacy? Fine,you sacrifice yours first and others will follow.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[TubeSteak]

Now, please post the article and section of the Constitution of the United States where it says that you have an absolute right to privacy and anonymity.

It's because of people like you that many writers of the Constitution did not want to include the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution is not an exhaustive or complete list of your rights.
It is only a list of rights the government has.

As a concession to those who did not want the Bill of Rights,
the 9th and 10th Amendments were tacked on to the end.
You should really go back and read them.

A more appropriate challenge would be:
"please post the article and section of the Constitution of the United States where it says that you do not have an absolute right to privacy and anonymity"

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so sure about what I know.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

He'd say CHILD p, but when its the only kind you've watched for years you tend to conflate the term.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[hairyfeet]

Did you even read the first sentence of what you posted? "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Jack Valenti's 'Forever minus a single day' may be a limited time where you come from, but for everybody else it is pretty obvious what it is...theft. The theft of our public domains from you, me, and all our descendants.

The USA copyright system was a contract, nothing more. Not sacred, not a constitutional right to unlimited profits, but a contract where EACH SIDE got something, but not anymore. When a man like Walt Disney can be dead for decades, yet one of his first works, Steamboat Willie, is still under copyright? Then you have "forever minus a single day".

This has come about because treasonous bribery has been declared legal by the worthless courts under the right to free speech, which of course means that only those with wealth are allowed to speak, by being able to have any law passed that their piggish hearts desire. The contract has been broken and until We, The People, have a seat at the bargaining table again copyrights should be treated as what they currently are, a worthless contract not worth the paper they are written on.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> Some, however, are very nasty 'things' indeed, preying on the young, weak, poor, drug-addicted...

An accurate general description of corporate America. What was it you wanted to say about pornography?

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[joebagodonuts]

The Constitution doesn't grant rights to citizens, it restricts the rights the Government has. Of course, there are people who feel differently. Perhaps it's time for a new constitution? That is something for the citizens to decide.

However, whichever point of view you take, the question of constitutional rights doesn't apply to this case, because Government isn't party. It's RIAA vs. some John Doe. Constitutional limits (or Constitutional Rights) are just a smokescreen. Now we are down a rabbit hole and off of the pertinent topic; namely that existing law applies. Existing law does allow for discovery, as the court ruled. And even though the law allows for this discovery, John Doe's constitutional protections haven't been violated.

That's why we have courts, to rule on such questions.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Barrinmw]

A right to privacy is inferred upon by the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th Amendments. The way I see it, this is an ok use of the legal system. They are using civil law in this matter, not criminal and they are trying to get a judge authorized subpoena for the records. At least they aren't using some tool to get the info that doesn't involve the courts. Now we can argue whether or not you agree with the company to be able to sue for the amounts they can and all that. Personally, I would love if the US would go to the newly mandated Right to Internet Anonymity that Israel has. An IP cannot be traced to a person...what in this day of being able to spoof IPs and stuff.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Joce640k]

Do you think it's right to post "scolding political criticism" anonymously? Maybe what the law should be protecting is the ability to respond to your critics.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution grants no rights at all. It singles some out for particular treatment, but it conveys no rights. The "it's not in the Constitution so it doesn't exist" crowd is wrong every time they open their mouths. Read the language: "...shall not be infringed", for instance, doesn't grant a right, it prevents the government from trampling on it. The Constitution even says this, that the enumeration of certain rights does not mean that others don't exist. In fact, there were those who opposed putting a Bill of Rights in there in the first place, believing (correctly) that people would use such a thing to try to deny other rights. That's why the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments--it was a compromise.

In fact, if you read the Bill of Rights carefully, it enumerates things that the British actually did to the Colonists at that time, and which they didn't want repeated. Now if only the British had wiretapped the Continental Congress without a warrant we might not be having some of the arguments we have today.

Remember, always remember, that the Constitution spells out duties of and limits on government. It has nothing to do with granting rights to people which they already possess.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could I perhaps encourage you to provide a more specific source or reference for this quoted text? I think it would be very helpful and relevant for both this and future discussions. Thanks.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I really have to point out that the US Constitution does not "grant" anything? It merely recognizes existing rights - and those rights exist whether enumerated or not.

You have it 100% backwards. I'm not sure whether you made that statement out of ignorance or just weren't thinking. The Constitution is a list of limits on *government*, not an enumeration of what the people may do.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you FAIL.. the Constitution is as worthless as the toilet paper you used to wipe your stinking arse with.

People either assert their God given rights (ie. their abilities..), or they *let* someone 'like you' (probably a pig..) convince them to not assert them.

Police and politicians blatantly break every rule, law, and common sense of decency that there is in life.. and most of the time they do it either anonymously, or in private... WITH the FULL expectation, that they *have-the-right-to*.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have missed the 9th then...

"The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

Idiots like you are why the founding fathers didn't want to include a numerated bill of rights in the first place, cause they knew someone like you would take it to mean those are the only rights we get. Hint: They aren't

(NB: You political bias is showing when you make a comment like: "Can any confused hippies^W^W Constitutional scholars help me out here?." But I wouldn't expect someone who apparently can only barely read to understand that.)

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and Gandhi used the military to curb peaceful political protests after peacefully taking power in India.

The U.S. government is not interested in another revolution; anonymous pamphleteering/editorializing/blogging is (or can be) a subversive act. Solution, make it nigh-impossible to post and distribute material anonymously. Justify it however necessary. When people's expectation of privacy is essentially nil, transgressions against those interested in agitating for change (here's your audit; sorry your loan got rejected; too bad your kid got passed over for MIT) will be written off as carelessness on the part of the agitator, not malevolent overreach on the part of government.

Of course, it's also highly effective to stir up a tempest in a teapot and skim off (jail, bribe, or co-opt) whatever floats to the top. Again, that doesn't work so well when anonymity is available. Twenty-first century McCarthyism is going to be very painful.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[JesseMcDonald]

However, whichever point of view you take, the question of constitutional rights doesn't apply to this case, because Government isn't party.

On the contrary, the government is a party to this case, indirectly. The RIAA is basing its complaint on the privilege of copyright which was granted it by the government. If the government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to infringe on free speech, and enforcement of copyright in this manner would infringe on free speech, then the government cannot delegate the privilege of enforcing copyright in this manner to the RIAA.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[DaveV1.0]

There is an inferred right to privacy, but it is not an absolute right to privacy. There is a big difference and that is my point.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[DaveV1.0]

In other words, there is not explicit or inferred absolute right to privacy.

Thanks for playing.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[DaveV1.0]

Do you even know what the law says? It says 70 years after the death of the author or, if a work for hire, 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.

That sounds like a long but limited time to me. Or, do you use some other definition for unlimited which means "A time I think is short enough"?

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[GNT]

You might want to look up Debates on the Constitution and First Amendment arguments where anonymity is a bulwark of free speech to deflect intimidation. Additionally we have an Amendment that reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."

Contrary to the morons on the Supreme Court and and the latest fascistic thinking, this amendment means what it says. Thus, the Feds ARE restricted to the enumerated powers and everything else is reserved to the States or the People. Thus you have a right to anonymity.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Protoslo]

IANAL, but I thought this was self-evident? It's hiding in the "penumbra" of the ninth and fourteenth amendments. Obviously.

Whatever your opinion on the penumbra, it has no bearing on this case, since your right to privacy did not have to be violated to collect the initial information used to obtain the subpoena. The defendant's argument was basically that subpoenas in principle violate privacy, which in reductio ad absurdum would make it absolutely impossible to collect evidence in any lawsuit against anyone, for anything (and possibly serve any warrant in any criminal investigation). So it is perfectly plausible to toss his argument while still hewing to the right to privacy.

Specifically, subpoenas are clearly covered by the "due process" language in the fourth and fourteenth amendments. We don't even need to make clever logical arguments.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[hairyfeet]

That sounds like a "limited time" to you? The fact that most folks will be dead or on their last breath before something copyrighted today ever see the public domain sounds "limited" to you? Plus you seem to forget this is something like the third time they have been extended, all preceded by...drum roll...that stupid mouse getting within a hair's breath of being public domain!

But don't worry fellow comrade! Now that the courts have ruled that Money=Speech thus making sure that those without a truckload of money can have any, I'm sure that when comrade mouse gets close to that evil public domain they'll just extend yet again, and you will have NO say in the matter.

So I'm sorry, but when you get past the lifespan of a human being you effectively have 'forever minus a single day' which old Jack Valenti pushed for all those years. I guess the old bastard died with a smile on his crusty old face knowing he got his wish. All thanks to a stupid fucking cartoon rodent.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Sylos]

The constitution is a delegation of powers *to* the Government, not to the People. Rather, if it's not mentioned *in* the Constitution/Amendments, the Government does not have the right to infringe upon it. Default goes to the Citizen

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[DaveV1.0]

Oh, that is rich. A time frame is only limited if it falls within your lifetime? How amazingly selfish. Your entire argument is "I want to use it, and can't so it is wrong!"

Let me guess, when you die, all humanity dies with you right? No one will exist after you are gone because you are the center of the fucking universe.

You are nothing but a selfish prick.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[joebagodonuts]

That's a bit of a reach - not that a reach would disuade a lawyer - or the folks here... The right has been granted. The merit of that action in regards to free speech is another topic. I could make the argument that the Government granting such rights is covered as part of the commerce clause.

But, back to this case - Isn't it the responsibility of the copyright holder (or their designated representative) to defend his copyright? I was under the impression if it isn't defended, the holder could lose the copyright. The government in this case isn't delegating a privilege to the RIAA. The companies are granted copyrights. Part of those rights granted included a responsibility on their part to defend those rights, or they risk losing them. Much like any other granted right.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Rogerborg]

Then explain why any Amendment except the 9th is necessary. It's OK, we'll wait while you dissemble.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Rogerborg]

Then explain why any Amendment except the 9th is necessary. I'll have my slave get me a beer while I wait.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Derosian]

That's a fallacious argument and you know it. The 9th is there to protect the government from saying this right is not in the constitution thus you don't have it. It basically protects common sense.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[hairyfeet]

No dipshit, the whole point of a public domain is to enrich us all which completely and totally fails if nothing can become public domain until it has lost all value and meaning! If we go by the current count a program written in 1965, assuming the author lives to 80 and it was a work for hire, we are looking at around 2060, give or take a decade or two.

Now you tell me dipshit, who the fuck is actually gonna have functional 1965 hardware in 2060, hell who will even understand the machine enough to give us a functional emulator? And who will keep this code for these decades so we can have it, when there isn't a chance of using it for nearly a century and a half?

So before you call someone a selfish prick, why don't you use that thing above your neck for something other than sucking *.A.A cock, okay? We have already lost thousands of movies, because thanks to the length of copyright any movie studio that doesn't think they can "maximize profit potential" with that particular movie will just let it rot while nobody else can restore it thanks to not even being able to give it away afterward, I'm sure most of the music of the 30s and 40s that weren't recorded by an ultra famous artist will end up the same way, and for what? So 4% of the population can continue to make profits decades after the one that wrote the thing kicked the fucking bucket!

THE WHOLE GOD DAMNED POINT OF COPYRIGHTS is to encourage artists to make more art for us all, now riddle me this brainiac:...How the fuck is keeping copyrights decades after they fucking died encouraging those dead fucks,hhmmm? Is old Zombie Walt gonna crawl out of the freezer to make Fantasia 14? Use your brains dipshit, this current situation is 'forever minus a single day' and does NOTHING but gives multinational corporations the right to steal the public domain FROM YOU, so quit kissing their asses and get with the program!

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Deliveranc3]

Yea they fixed that, now when you use a personal printer it inserts an "invisible" code onto the page, so they can identify you. Pretty slick eh?

Wonder what juices they have runniing through your operating system, perhaps ichor might be a better term.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[JesseMcDonald]

That's a bit of a reach ... I could make the argument that the Government granting such rights is covered as part of the commerce clause.

You could, and there are justices on the SCOTUS who would believe that—but justifying anything by "the commerce clause", rather than the specific powers listed under that heading, is rather more of a stretch than saying that the government cannot pass laws granting others powers it is explicitly forbidden from exercising itself, including infringement of free speech.

Isn't it the responsibility of the copyright holder (or their designated representative) to defend his copyright?

No. You're thinking of trademarks.

The government in this case isn't delegating a privilege to the RIAA. The companies are granted copyrights.

That's what copyright is, though: a delegated privilege. The government grants copyright holders the privilege of exclusive distribution of specific works—or rather, prohibits everyone else from distributing said work on their behalf. Enforcement is the government's responsibility; the Constitution doesn't grant that privilege to anyone else.

The government, in turn, is Constitutionally limited in regard to how it may enforce copyrights; if it chooses to delegate its enforcement powers to private parties, via civil law or otherwise, it cannot grant these private parties powers which the government does not have itself.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[barberousse]

The way I'm seeing the american political system, it seems that any right as no value what so ever. Even if it is in the constitution.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[joebagodonuts]

Ok. I'm still not completely clear on this (who is?) - but here's what seemed pertinent from the wikipedia entry.

"The copyright owner is given two sets of rights: an exclusive, positive right to copy and exploit the copyrighted work, or license others to do so, and a negative right to prevent anyone else from doing so without consent, with the possibility of legal remedies if they do." - ^ Jones, Hugh; and Benson, Christopher (2002). Publishing law. Routledge. pp. 12–13. ISBN 9780415261548.

I didn't see anything about enforcement being a privilege granted for the copyright holder. There is mention of legal remedies, but as far as I know the enforcement of law remains the responsibility of the government, not the copyright holder or their delegates. By what method would a rights holder (say Disney) enforce the law? various method of copy protection could technically fit under that umbrella, but I would consider copy protection, drm as clumsy efforts to prevent the copy right from being violated.

The defendant argued he had a right/expectation of privacy or anonymity - part of protecting free speech - and the allegations made against him weren't sufficient to overrule his rights in this case. The appellate court disagreed. I think I'm more disturbed that the language used in the decision could be interpreted that they have already decided that infringement HAS occurred. Without trial.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Rogerborg]

It's OK, this stuff is tricky, don't feel bad that you can't answer the question without waving your hands and saying "'Cause."

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[DaveV1.0]

No, shithead, you just said that copyright protections are unlimited because they won't be available in your lifetime. It does fall into the public domain, just not in your lifetime. Nice of you be to so transparent of a childish, selfish asshole.

Now, shut the fuck up.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not to say that everyone doing anything bad is protected by anonymity.

What a slippery slope you tread on... What is the definition of "bad"? Is it killing someone? Is it stealing a purse? Is it looking at pornography? Is it expressing negative opinions of the government?

It's better said as "illegal", but even then that's vague.

Oh, now you've gotten me depressed.

Re:A Constitutional what now?

[JesseMcDonald]

I didn't see anything about enforcement being a privilege granted for the copyright holder. There is mention of legal remedies, but as far as I know the enforcement of law remains the responsibility of the government, not the copyright holder or their delegates. By what method would a rights holder (say Disney) enforce the law?

Enforcement is split into two aspects. There is the rare case of criminal copyright infringement, which is handled directly by the government (with the occasional tip-off from the private sector), and then there is civil copyright infringement, where copyright holders are responsible for tracking down the infringers and making their case for the government in civil court in exchange for legal compensation. Both kinds of enforcement may apply to the same action. It is the first part of the civil enforcement, the detective work, which I referred to earlier; the actual enforcement of the ruling is still up to the government. However, the ruling in this case is not based on any natural right, but rather a privilege of exclusivity which the government has granted the copyright holder. There are no actual damages which could justify a response in kind under common law. As such, any response to copyright infringement is limited by what the copyright holder could do privately and what the government is permitted to do under the Constitution—which explicitly excludes such things as abridging free speech.

That said, I think the defendant's argument is unfounded; there is a right to anonymous speech, in that no one can make you say who you are, but if someone can find out who you are anyway I see no just cause to prohibit this form of discovery. I would be more inclined to argue that the allegations themselves have no merit, as they do not involve the violation of anyone's natural rights, and that whatever the allegations the court does not have the right to force anyone else to reveal the defendant's identify. (I understand that these positions are considered somewhat radical. Nonetheless, they are my true feelings on the matter.)

Promised Land? BS

[Voulnet]

Bit by bit, people in America lose everybit of freedom they thought they had. It seems that freedom in America is granted as long as it doesn't interfere with the interests of corporations. That's worse than the freedom in many many parts around the world! Is the American public capable of a revolution against the system that favors those with deep pockets? The right to share, the right for a fair trial, the right to use what you bought in whatever way you want; and consequently the right of privacy; are the first forts of freedom to fall. What else are you people going to let go, citizens of the USA?

Re:Promised Land? BS

[flajann]

http://fractopoly.com/

Re:Promised Land? BS

[DerekLyons]

Except - I don't see any examples here of any 'loss of freedom'. John Doe was sharing copyrighted material, which has been illegal for a very long time, so being prosecuted for it hardly represents anything new.
 

The right to share, the right for a fair trial, the right to use what you bought in whatever way you want; and consequently the right of privacy; are the first forts of freedom to fall.

We've never had the unlimited right to share what does not belong to us. There's nothing here preventing the defendant(s) from getting a fair trial. The unlimited 'right' to use what bought in whatever way you want has never been a right - it's strictly a creation of pirates to justify their actions. And you've never been able to claim anonymity to avoid prosecution except in the limited case of whistle blowers.
 
Or, in short, while your statement is essentially the 'perfect storm' of karmawhoring - it bears very little connection with reality.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[shoehornjob]

Is the American public capable of a revolution against the system that favors those with deep pockets?

Only when things are at their worst will we be ready to put down our corporate overlords and bribe taking congress. Until then...all hail to the corporate overlords.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[DaveV1.0]

Please show where in American history there was a time when people were free to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. Remember, if there is N copies of a work in existence authorized by the copyright holder and an action occurs without the copyright holders consent after which there are N+1 copies then copying has taken place and unless it falls under fair use, which is for a court to decide, then it is copyright infringement.

Please explain how this person is not getting a fair trial.

Please explain where in U.S. law it says one has an absolute right to privacy that can not be violate, at all, ever.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[Anonymous Coward]

We shall not let technology devalue our market niche. Sure, it's allowed in other sectors, because that's how an open market works, but not in ours. Maintaining our profit margin is more important than your individual freedoms and rights. If automobiles start to infringe on our territory, we will lobby for control of their industry. If architecture begins to infringe on our market, we'll lobby for control of their niche. We will stop at nothing to artificially maintain value in the digitized content sub-niche of home entertainment. We will never, NEVER, leave that market, and neither will you.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[nurb432]

No, we aren't losing our rights. We are f-ing handing them to the man on a silver platter.

"losing" implies we put up a fight. :(

Re:Promised Land? BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you understand? It must be bleak! It cannot be the same as before! I am 20 years old, the new generation, more insightful and smarter than my peers! The world is changing I tell you, and I'm living in the midst of it. It's oh so secretly thrilling... ooh, hold on, my panties are all askew.

Carry on, ya geezer.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[Anonymous Coward]

In Project Mayhem we have no names, Sir.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[dissy]

Please show where in American history there was a time when people were free to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works.

For reference, it was between 1776 (When America was declared independent) and 1790 when America introduced their first copyright laws.

Beyond the basic facts of history, one could easily argue the time period was quite a bit larger than that, as the first copyright bill to appear similar to what we have, though a lot more limited, was not formed until the 1830's.
Since then it has mostly been extended, or expanded by signing treaties with others.

Your other points are right on, even if worded in a needlessly angry way :P

In the grand scheme of things, the GP may have a point... But definitely not a point aided by this particular court decision.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[Voulnet]

Oh really? You say you have the right to a fair trial? Why in the world, then, are people persecuted based on their IPs? The IP is the lone piece of evidence they use against alleged file sharers, and everybody who knows anything about computers knows that the IP as an evidence is, practically, no evidence. How in the hell is a trial 'fair' when you get fined 2 million dollars for 20 songs? The outcome of the trial is part of the trial, you know. How come in your system; you have to have lots of money to spend around if you want to be innocent, what kind of fair trial is it if the opposition can defeat me in court by depleting my money? What kind of fair court favors, through and through, the size with the deep pockets as we've seen numerous times? What kind of fair trial is this if the opposing side is the one monitoring my privacy and and sending me extortion letters? Also, how in the world is using what you bought in whatever way you wish NOT a right? It's a right in every frakkin country in the world except the US and the countries affected by its policies! If I bought a device, I have every right to disassemble it, break it and use it in another way; including breaking whatever protection put on the device; it's my device after all. You guys were the ones who invented the illegality of protection circumcision which basically means "Buy our device and use it only in the ways we approve of". Are you guys kidding? Your patriotism is blinding you, and the US public is losing more and more power over time. Should I remind you of the Patriot Act? Have fun being spied upon for no reason whatsoever. Enjoy sleeping in honey.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[Voulnet]

The easiest thing for the lazy geezers is to look the other way, instead of doing something about how their rights are slowly being taken away. After all, looking the other way is much easier. Trying to sound old and wise while doing so is also recommended to satisfy one's ego. Whether you looked or not, the problems are there, and will continue to do so unless an action is taken, the digital revolution is continuously contradicting with the powerholders' grasp of things and unless the public does something, the rights will continue to be suppressed.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[Voulnet]

Since I already answered a similar question, here is a copypasta: If you guys have the right to a fair trial then why in the world are people persecuted based on their IPs? The IP is the lone piece of evidence they use against alleged file sharers, and everybody who knows anything about computers knows that the IP as an evidence is, practically, no evidence. How is a trial 'fair' when you get fined 2 million dollars for 20 songs? The outcome of the trial is part of the trial, you know. How come in your system; you have to have lots of money to spend around if you want to be innocent, what kind of fair trial is it if the opposition can defeat me in court by depleting my money? What kind of fair court favors, through and through, the size with the deep pockets as we've seen numerous times? What kind of fair trial is this if the opposing side is the one monitoring my privacy and and sending me extortion letters? Should I remind you of the Patriot Act? Have fun being spied upon for no reason whatsoever. Enjoy sleeping in honey.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[DerekLyons]

The IP is the lone piece of evidence they use against alleged file sharers

Yeah, that and the presence of file sharing software on the computers, and the open admission on the part of the defendant that he was sharing the files 'because he believed it was fair use to do so'.
 

verybody who knows anything about computers knows that the IP as an evidence is, practically, no evidence

Practically no evidence isn't the same a not being evidence. Not to mention that neither the school nor John Doe deny that the IP address is (at least in this instance) a unique identifier.
 

How in the hell is a trial 'fair' when you get fined 2 million dollars for 20 songs?

That a penalty is unjust has no bearing on whether or not the proceedings are unfair.
 

If I bought a device, I have every right to disassemble it, break it and use it in another way; including breaking whatever protection put on the device; it's my device after all.

If we were talking about a device, you'd have a point. Instead, it's just more smokescreen on your part.
 

It's a right in every frakkin country in the world except the US and the countries affected by its policies!

I see. Do you rape 12 year old children because it's a legal in some countries? Do you stone adulterers in your neighborhood because it's legal in some countries? If not, then you seem awfully selective in who you choose to use as a precedent.
 

hould I remind you of the Patriot Act? Have fun being spied upon for no reason whatsoever.

Ah yes, and here we see the final act of the play - as predictable as sunrise. After creating 'rights' which don't exist, ranting against the corporations, and gratuitous anti-US blather, comes the completely unrelated preference to the Patriot Act. Not only are you completely disconnected from reality, you're an utter loon without the ability to frame a coherent argument. Instead you substitute slinging everything little bit of dogma you can think of because you can't actually think.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Please show where in American history there was a time when people were free to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works.

Try from about the time it was colonized..

In Great Britain's North American colonies, reprinting British copyright works without permission had long happened episodically, but only became a major feature of colonial life after 1760. It became more commonplace to reprint British works in the colonies (mostly in the 13 American colonies). The impetus for this shift came from Irish and Scottish master printers and booksellers who had moved to the North American colonies in the mid 18th century. They were already familiar with the practice of reprinting and selling British copyright works, and continued the practice in North America, and it became a major part of the North American printing and publishing trade.

-source

to the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[Voulnet]

No, the one who cannot think is none other than you. The only thing you can manage is play on words, and here is why:

Yeah, that and the presence of file sharing software on the computers, and the open admission on the part of the defendant that he was sharing the files 'because he believed it was fair use to do so'.

Everybody except you (because of a deficiency in how you think) knows that I wasn't talking about this particular case, but in general all cases in which Intellectual Property is taken to court; people are persecuted and blackmailed under nothing but IP addresses. Please don't blame me for your inadequate ability to think straight, you can use more word play here to satisfy your ego, but it won't change the fact about how your brain works, I'm so sorry.

That a penalty is unjust has no bearing on whether or not the proceedings are unfair.

Here you conduct more useless wordplay. WTF is the point of a trial if the punishments are 100,000+ times worth the crime (assuming a crime)? Are you saying that since the proceedings of the trial were conducted in a normal fashion, that it becomes a fair trial no matter the absurdity of the outcome? Notice how you play on the words, I did NOT say the proceedings of the trial were unfair, I said that the trial in its ENTIRETY was unfair. Your attempt to falsify my claim (that the trial is unfair) by choosing one side of the trial that was done correctly (maybe) is obvious and is rendered useless because the point of a trial is not its proceedings, but its outcome; which is almost always unfair in all IP-related trials.

It's a right in every frakkin country in the world except the US and the countries affected by its policies!

I see. Do you rape 12 year old children because it's a legal in some countries? Do you stone adulterers in your neighborhood because it's legal in some countries? If not, then you seem awfully selective in who you choose to use as a precedent.

What the hell? How unreasonable can your argument be? How can you liken the right to use a device I bought as I wish to the ability to rape children? You are very reasonable and I offer you a piece of advice: Learn how to compare. Since you can't understand, allow me to rephrase: The right of a customer to hack the shit out of a device he made is a simple right that everybody has everywhere, except in the USA because it conflicts with the interests of corporations; hence the point of my original post: Rights of the people are only applicable when they don't interfere with the interests of those with deep pockets. How can somebody compare this simple right with raping kids, I don't know. If I was citing an unreasonable right, then yeah you can compare it to raping kids, but I'm talking about hacking consumer devices, for God's sake.

should I remind you of the Patriot Act? Have fun being spied upon for no reason whatsoever.

Ah yes, and here we see the final act of the play - as predictable as sunrise. After creating 'rights' which don't exist, ranting against the corporations, and gratuitous anti-US blather, comes the completely unrelated preference to the Patriot Act. Not only are you completely disconnected from reality, you're an utter loon without the ability to frame a coherent argument. Instead you substitute slinging everything little bit of dogma you can think of because you can't actually think.

Ah, here is where you show the true nature behind your entire argument: blind patriotism. That I cannot cure, I'm sorry again. The reason I brought in the Patriot Act is obvious: Your rights and how they are easily taken away whenever convenient. If you still can't understand that my original post was more about your lost rights in general, then you won't understand why the inclusion of the Patriot Act was relevant. The rights I have mentioned above are rights eve

Re:Promised Land? BS

[DaveV1.0]

Apparently you don't know the difference between prosecuted and persecuted. IP addresses can change and be spoofed, but logs contain a record of who acquired an IP address when and spoofed IP addresses make sustained bidirectional communication difficult. Anyone who knows anything about networking knows this to be true.

Also, you apparently don't know the difference between a trial and a penalty.

It is amusing that you decry that having lots of money means one can win through extended litigation. As near as I can tell, that is the way it is anywhere there are free-market lawyers.

If one offers something for free to anyone over the internet, one has no expectation of privacy. It is not extortion when one is defending their legally granted rights.

Please tell us where you are as you admit you are not an American and obviously have no understanding of many, if not all, legal systems.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[Anonymous Coward]

then the products which are 'copyrighted' should not be billed as a sale.. rather a lease, with a contract that must be signed..

Re:Promised Land? BS

[DaveV1.0]

In other words, the only time was during the time all laws were being set up and ironed out. Yes, the United States of American and all its laws did not spring into existence fully formed and complete. It did take a little time. But, once the law was set, it was set.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[wrook]

Whether or not the copying was fair use seems to be the crux of the matter. The copying of a work that falls under "fair use" is not infringement. This is laid out in the copyright law http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 The court was originally being asked to identify the student.. The student tried to stop this by saying that no infringement occurred and so releasing their name would be an invasion of privacy. It seems to me that the judge decided that whether or not the copying was fair use or not was still up in the air, and so a trial was warranted. Like you said, it all seems perfectly reasonable to me -- from all sides. The plaintiff is entitled to ask for the disclosure of the name, the defendant is entitled to object saying that they were clearly not infringing, and the judge is entitled to say that the matter isn't clear enough to prevent the disclosure.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy is a right. That right was violated. If the copyright owners can't survive or their business model doesn't work with that right so be it- let them die off.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[h00manist]

Please show where in American history there was a time when people were free to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works.

Today. They are free to sit at their computer and do it. There will likely be no consequences. About 0,01% of people in the US are taken as punishment for everyone else.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also easy to be an overly paranoid self-assured nutcase. Youthful arrogance v. elder apathy. I wonder which applies here.

BTW, you aren't doing anything productive by commenting on Slashdot - that's an illusion. Acting out against the law only emboldens those enforcing it. Maybe you can start actually changing things by writing your congressman for the first time in your life. As your parents did before you. Yes, they do write back - it's their job.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[Burz]

There has always been the actual freedom to breech copyright (though consequences may follow). But with ACTA even that freedom could disappear if law enforcement sees infringement as 'imminent'.

Re:Promised Land? BS

[DaveV1.0]

However, whether the copying was fair use or not is not the student's call but rather it is the court's call. This is the real world, not grade school. That is the whole point of the suit. One does not call "Fair use" and all is well. One must prove fair use before the court.

Privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

cat first_amendment.txt |grep privacy

Ooooh 'trespassing intellectual property'

[unity100]

now thats a first.

i wonder how low u.s. judicial system will sink under the weight of the money of riaa.

Re:Ooooh 'trespassing intellectual property'

[Anonymous Coward]

so you notice.

calm down and assume party escort position.

Re:Ooooh 'trespassing intellectual property'

[nurb432]

But the attorneys will make money.. More people will be ruined financially, and more will be in jail ( don't laugh, this will start happening soon, so the *AAs can transfer the cost of pursuing to the government. )

Re:Ooooh 'trespassing intellectual property'

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Actually, I think this is at least amazingly better than calling it "theft". The analogy of "accessing 'content' without permission of the rightsholder" to "accessing private physical space without permission of the rightsholder" is far more rational than the usual attempt to analogize it with "removing property from the owner by force" ("theft").

As silly as it still sounds, this represents a substantial improvement.

Don't do the crime if you can't the TIME !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Time
Flowing like a river
Time
Beckoning me
Who knows when we shall meet again
If ever
But time
Keeps flowing like a river
To the sea

Goodbye my love
Maybe for forever
Goodbye my love
The tide waits for me
Who knows when we shall meet again
If ever
But time
Keeps flowing like a river (on and on)
To the sea, to the sea

Till it's gone forever
Gone forever
Gone forevermore

Goodbye my friends (goodbye my love, now I must leave)
Maybe for forever
Goodbye my friends (who knows when we shall meet again)
The stars wait for me
Who knows where we shall meet again
If ever
But time
Keeps flowing like a river (on and on)
To the sea, to the sea

Till it's gone forever
Gone forever
Gone forevermore

Forevermore
Forevermore
Forevermore

Re:Don't do the crime if you can't the TIME !!

[Fluffeh]

I wonder who our anon poet is, have being seeing a lot of this stuff on here of late. Sure, it's offtopic, but it's sort of cool actually. To me, it's sort of like bumping into a stranger at a coffee shop, who says something really amazing, or insightful, but then walks away quickly and you never get to speak to them again.

As funny as it is, I would love to know why this person picked this, of all places to post to over something like deviantart or one of the countless others, whether they come back to check if anyone has replied to their posts.

Lastly, cheer up, your stuff has been rather sad of late.

Re:Don't do the crime if you can't the TIME !!

[Roger Wilcox]

Alan Parsons Project! Not sure what it has to do with this thread though...

Re:Don't do the crime if you can't the TIME !!

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I'd be impressed if it was original... but as it is, it's just offtopic. I suppose we could get all intellectual and assume that he's trying to make some deeper point about copyright infringement and anonymity ;)

How to erode Copyright+patent law

[h00manist]

As far as I can see, the best way to change this stuff is civil disobedience - breaking the law, asserting rights to use all human knowledge as a human right, and accusing the law of denying the rights to freedom of thought, expression, assembly, knowledge and communication. As a political campaign, ideally I think this should be public, not anonymous, and in great numbers, accompanied by media communications. A public wifi network in a public square, public distribution of copyrighted works on media, etc. Sheets of paper with links and instructions on how to share files, addresses, etc. Following this, public debate on the law will begin, and the more public involved in the debate, the vocal they are, the more likely the public will win, not the copyright holders.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[__aasqbs9791]

I take the other approach. I think we need to work to make things much worse for the average user (and not so average). We need to push for laws that make IP infringement a mandatory capital offense. And then we need to make sure sons of politicians get caught, daughters of RIAA execs get caught, spouses of MPAA execs get caught. Only then will we see some change that isn't awful.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[DaveV1.0]

You do that and let me know how that works out for you, m'kay?

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

What is it specifically you don't like about copyright and patent laws? Is it the whole thing; the whole concept? Or is it just parts (e.g. term lengths, DMCA, no protection of fair use, etc)? I don't know, perhaps it is the whole thing, and perhaps you should be violating every copyright and patent you can see. However, that being the case, good luck finding enough people for a political movement. Sure, they exist, but most people you talk to can see some utility in copyright and patent law, including most judges.

If it's not so much the entire bundle as it is certain parts, try to focus on those parts. Perhaps, if you object to DMCA, restrict yourself to distributing cracks for popular games. Or if you dislike term lengths, perhaps violate only the copyrights that are older than 20-30 years. Try to violate only what you object to.

An even better approach would be to divorce yourself from copyrighted media (or the elements you dislike). Prove to people that you, and they, can live without $BAD_FACTOR_OF_COPYRIGHT and everything that it could possibly bring. Prove that we are better off without it. It's certainly no less harmful to Big Media.

There's a lot of greed in play in the copyright debate. Not just on Big Media's side, but on both sides. It's difficult to differentiate between those who want change and those who want free stuff. Make it unavoidably clear, whatever you do, that you are not in it for the entertainment.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[pushing-robot]

asserting rights to use all human knowledge as a human right

Do you think that the world would be a better place if the only thing we valued was manual labor? If any public knowledge was worthless (in a financial sense) knowledge?

The world already experimented with the idea that "knowledge is free to all". We ended up with opaque guilds that fiercely protected their trade secrets. The Freemasons and similar groups are a throwback to when skilled labor groups used every means they had to ensure that the skills of their trade never became public knowledge. And while modern companies might not use threats of supernatural violence and arcane authorization rituals, eliminating intellectual property laws would almost certainly lead to more draconian restrictions on information.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[Sabriel]

I think there's a great difference between worthless and priceless. And as for opaque and secretive medieval guilds, times have changed. Technology is no longer an arcane art known only to a few; the sciences both theoretical and practical are taught in universities and colleges the world over, the internet allows any piece of reverse-engineered information to be widely spread across the planet in moments, and even merely knowing something could be done would allow the creative output of millions of scientists, unfettered by patent monopolies and fears of lawsuits and bankruptcy, to focus upon it.

Remember, some of the most massive technological advancements came about during wartime, when patents were suddenly far less important than gaining a technological edge. Imagine if we could apply that creative drive in peacetime, for peaceful goals.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[misexistentialist]

Children of politicians and wealthy executives can usually get away with capital offenses. Even if they don't, most politicians and executives would have no probably throwing the switch themselves.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[__aasqbs9791]

Well, for the first part we'd just need to make sure we got enough of them. For the second, at least nepotism would be lowered?

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[Anonymous Coward]

You sum it all up in "Big Media"; that's exactly what the problem is: media. That what is in between the creators and the consumers.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[Draek]

Do you think that the world would be a better place if the only thing we valued was manual labor? If any public knowledge was worthless (in a financial sense) knowledge?

Yeah, I do.

The world already experimented with the idea that "knowledge is free to all". We ended up with opaque guilds that fiercely protected their trade secrets./quote>

In an age where dissemination of knowledge was incredibly expensive and relatively easy to trace and the average layman had even less education than a modern 4-years-old kid does. Do you really, honestly believe that 'trade secrets' could ever remain so in a world where WikiLeaks exists and thrives? that mere corporate associations would succeed where entire governments have not?

If secrecy is the worst thing you can think of then fucking bring it, go ahead and throw all this copyright crap out of the window.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[Anonymous Coward]

The nature/extent of copyright enforcement depends on what kind of information transmission infrastructure we have.

In the past, the methods for information transmission were things such as radio, print, television. The average person didn't have the technology to share media with millions of people, the number of copyright infringers was much smaller back then.

Now we have the internet; your average person can transmit information to a large number of other people. There are millions and millions of copyright infringers now. How would you enforce copyright law effectively?

You'd have to set up pervasive legal and technical infrastructure to monitor/control content on the internet. You can see where big media wants society to go when they bring up things like content filtering, "3 strikes", etc.

And what happens if/when they succeed? You'll now have some infrastructure to monitor what millions of people are doing on the internet. The scope and power accorded to this system will certainly increase over time.

The internet will no longer be the semi-open medium of information exchange it is today, it will become a means for government/corporations to control your life.

While there is utility in copyright and patent law, enforcing it as is in the current age will result in enormous restrictions on our freedom in the long run.

Cost of entertainment is just the tip of the iceberg.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[Anonymous Coward]

I like this idea. Thank you for proposing it. Look for it coming up on the news in the near future, and the RIAA's hitlist later today.

Again, Thank You!

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[MagusSlurpy]

As far as I can see, the best way to change this stuff is civil disobedience - breaking the law, asserting rights to use all human knowledge as a human right, and accusing the law of denying the rights to freedom of. . . knowledge and communication. . .

So what you're saying is that Nixon was standing up for our P2P rights with Watergate. He truly was a pioneer!

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[znerk]

So what you're saying is that Nixon was standing up for our P2P rights with Watergate. He truly was a pioneer!

Quite obviously false - he was *destroying* information!

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[Anonymous Coward]

M KAY brainiac, *WE* know how it is 'working-out'-- for us.

Even tho so called *pirating* is suppose to be hurting the scum running the (entertainment??) in-dust-ry.. the pirates are actually the ones who are doing all the extra work in order to get the word of mouth out, about the very few titles that are worth buying or downloading for free. WE should be the ones stalking and suing the RIAA's!!

Soo.. we pirates are winning.. GOT IT-- ASSHAT!!

Ahhhhnd... encryption will mature-- totally, SOOOON.. enough.. that the pigs (ie. cops, feds, gay-judges..etc.) won't be able to tell which side is up, concerning the communications venue, known as the InterNet...

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what is it with those coke-addicted stars? Everyone knows they breathe the stuff, yet they never seem to get caught.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[cdrguru]

Where is the formula for Coke on WikiLeaks?

Oh, yeah... that guy. Well, his wife give him a really nice funeral after they were done with him.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[mangu]

The world already experimented with the idea that "knowledge is free to all". We ended up with opaque guilds that fiercely protected their trade secrets

Exactly in which way that's different from a world where software is sold without source code and movies are sold with DRM?

If the spirit of patents and copyrights were followed by the law, any work sold without full disclosure would be denied the protection of the law.

Otherwise, how can we be sure those studios will release the device drivers and keys for playing bluray discs 75 year after the author dies? Has Microsoft put the source code to Altair 8800 BASIC in escrow to be relased 75 years after Bill Gates dies?

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[bky1701]

"Do you think that the world would be a better place if the only thing we valued was manual labor? If any public knowledge was worthless (in a financial sense) knowledge?"

This is a false dichotomy. Just because knowledge itself is free, does not mean its creation is free. In some cases, even distribution may not be free, even without copyright (think about university tuition).

And I personally do believe that the world would be a significantly better place without copyright. Not only would it remove the arbitrary barriers to knowledge which we see in absurdly overpriced textbooks and other informative resources (which drive up the cost of becoming skilled labor in the first place), but it would also truly encourage free expression. As it stands, creating just about anything without the permission of the copyright lobby in that field (RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft/Apple, etc) puts you at serious personal risk, no matter what your intentions were. We JUST SAW how this works, with Jobs threatening an open codec for no reason other than it runs counter to the interests of the moneyed, patent-owning businesses. I'll give more examples, to try to shove it into your closed little mind just how our system actually works. Remember SCO? How much money did lawsuits filed by SCO cost businesses like Novell and IBM, which could have otherwise been funding actual development and real contribution to society with that money? What did we gain out of those lawsuits as a society? How much did they cost tax payers in court, money which could have gone to health care, education, or any number of actually beneficial expenditures?

I won't even mention the lawsuits which literally destroy the lives of families for no reason other than music piracy. I will talk about is how even internal disputes between copyright owners bleed us. Ever hear of the lawsuit between the Beastie Boys and James Newton? One must wonder what we gained from that!

How many times do these things have to happen before copyright apologists like you get a clue? The sooner we destroy "intellectual property," the sooner we can return to actually encouraging creative, social, and scientific advancement.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[Anonymous Coward]

It seemed to have worked for Martin Luther King, right up until they shot him that is.

And sticking with MLK, he talked frequently about one of the primary duties of citizenship: to speak out and directly challenge unjust laws. It is the only means we have to change them, the legal system is not our's to command and only through critical mass can we change something as immoral as segregation or copyright.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[CSMatt]

I think both approaches are the wrong way to go. Civil disobedience only works if you can get an immense, passionate group of people to partake in it, and do it in such a way as to attract others to the cause. As it stands, most people don't care enough about this for it to actually be a viable form of protest, and those who do are small enough that the public will turn a blind eye to them. More importantly, it is worth noting that this can easily backfire and cause lobbyists to simply push for even harsher laws to combat it, now that they can play the victim even better by pointing to these people as the justification for more regulation.

The hard-lined opposite approach won't work either. Again, because the majority of people aren't passionate about this, they will simply shrug it off and get used to it, whether that is in the form of accepting the new laws or just moving to more covert methods. Furthermore, we already know that Edgar Bronfman isn't (publicly at least) going to give his kids any slack if they are found to be infringing, so what makes you think that any other executives or politicians you mention are going to act differently?

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[alexo]

Your mistake is the assumption that the same rules apply to you and to them.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[__aasqbs9791]

No, that works in my favor, too. Creating division between classes is a primary cause of revolution throughout history. It just has to be obvious and loud enough to disrupt the status quo, else it is ignored.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[alexo]

No, that works in my favor, too. Creating division between classes is a primary cause of revolution throughout history. It just has to be obvious and loud enough to disrupt the status quo, else it is ignored.

Um, no.
Revolutions are nasty and bloody and lethal businesses and only happen when enough people decide that the alternative is far worse.
As long as the most of the populace is supplied with bread and circuses, the status quo will be maintained.

Now, don't take it personally, but since you're posting on Slashdot and not storming Capitol Hill (or your local equivalent if you're not an American), I can only assume that you are not close to the breaking point. In that case, what makes you assume that others will be different?

Democracy is a wonderful thing for forestalling revolutions. People have "the other party" to blame and are sure that, come next election, things will improve.

I am not a history buff, but as far as I can tell, revolutions happened either when masses were being killed or when some would-be dictator wanted a shot at being at the top. Class differences are not reason enough.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[__aasqbs9791]

Hence, my whole point about making things worse (capital offense, aka death penalty offenses) rather than working to make them better.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[alexo]

Hence, my whole point about making things worse (capital offense, aka death penalty offenses) rather than working to make them better.

Ruling elites do not rise to power (or stay in power) by being stupid.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law

[__aasqbs9791]

But they do often become arrogant, which is just as bad.

Right to anonymity? I don't think so.

[Lord Bitman]

You have a right to communicate anonymously. This is protected by the first amendment and anyone who stands in your way of doing so is committing a crime.

You do NOT have the right to force others to act as if you are anonymous after you communicate non-anonymously. This is not protected by anything, and is pretty stupid.

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a right to communicate anonymously. This is protected by the first amendment and anyone who stands in your way of doing so is committing a crime.

You do NOT have the right to force others to act as if you are anonymous after you communicate non-anonymously. This is not protected by anything, and is pretty stupid.

Really?
Please list the relevant section of the First Amendment that gives the right to anonymity while breaking the law.
Right or wrong, "sharing" music that the copyright owners do not want being "shared" is in violation of the law.

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so.

[AHuxley]

Depends hows you read
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
and the "against unreasonable searches and seizures" part of your digital papers, and effects.
The idea that your home could be raided on some virtual "seen your IP "trespasser"" fishing type court order seems strange.
The suggestion that some non US gov entity can enter your home based on seeing a string of numbers at a given time is scary.

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a right to communicate anonymously. This is protected by the first amendment and anyone who stands in your way of doing so is committing a crime.

You do NOT have the right to force others to act as if you are anonymous after you communicate non-anonymously. This is not protected by anything, and is pretty stupid.

Really?
Please list the relevant section of the First Amendment that gives the right to anonymity while breaking the law.
Right or wrong, "sharing" music that the copyright owners do not want being "shared" is in violation of the law.

Except for that, you know, fair use thing.

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's agreeing, you idiot

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

(source)

The right to privacy/anonymity applies to everyone, guilty or not. The right is not absolute, but unless there is solid evidence I wouldn't say a private (!) company should be allowed to pass this right. This is what the police is/are for; they can (through court orders or search warrants for example) have the right to investigate you.

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so.

[siride]

That document has no binding legal force in the US and so is irrelevant for this discussion.

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so.

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, you have a right to murder anonymously. This is protected by, among other things, the concept of due process (or the presumption of innocence, or probable cause).

You do NOT have the right to force others to act as if you are anonymous after you murder non-anonymously. This is not permitted by anything, and is pretty stupid.

The encrypted contents of my own hard drive, which I could keep in a safe buried under five feet of concrete and never ever share with anyone, are still not considered privileged information. It's a very significant formal distinction; if I babble some secret to a priest in a confessional or a lawyer in his office, they can't touch it, but when I go to lengths on my own part to keep my thoughts to myself, it's fair game. The government can seize the drive and demand the decryption key if they can imagine by any mental gymnastics that some incriminating information might be on that drive. I have no fifth amendment right to clam up and not incriminate myself at this point; they shot that dog awhile back. At that point, they DON'T have to go looking for more evidence, they can take my denial as reason enough to presume guilt, ESPECIALLY in civil cases.

...

Honestly, the Singularity can't come soon enough.

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so.

[Lord Bitman]

There's a difference between "communication" and "murder". One is protected by the first amendment, the other is forbidden by the fifth amendment.

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so.

[Lord Bitman]

The first amendment gives you the right to free speech. This means that no particular method of speech can be illegal. The content of the speech can be illegal if it directs some other illegal activity (it's illegal to tell someone to kill someone else, for example), but I challenge you to find any method of speech (which does not directly cause harm to another person or another person's property) which is illegal, and has withstood challenges to its legality.

Even bans on cryptography were, if I recall correctly, only bans on the tools to send cryptographic messages being send to other countries. The messages themselves were never restricted. (please correct me with the history if my wiki-stumbling has misinformed me)

Once again, people

[DaveV1.0]

One does not have an absolute constitutional right to privacy or anonymity, especially when interacting with in public space, such as on the internet. You might not want your identity made available, but all it takes is a subpoena to get it. Seeing as the RIAA is suing those they believe are violating their copyrights, they have a valid reason to request the subpoena, namely to properly name the defendant. "I don't want them to sue me because I don't think I did anything wrong" is not a valid reason to quash a subpoena because no one wants to be sued and the suit in question is about whether one did something wrong. The fact that it involves the Internet doesn't matter either. If plaintiff had your University parking pass number, do you think the court would refuse to allow a subpoena to get your name from the University?

Giving away or selling unauthorized copies of a work, be they physical or electronic, is not fair use. It really is as simple as that. Just because it is effectively free to make and give those copies away doesn't make doing it fair use. Just because you made no money making and giving the copies away don't make it fair use. Just because you are a poor college student using a university network, doesn't make it fair use. Whether or not making the copies is fair use is for the court to decide, not the respondent.

He may as well have said, literally, "I don't want them to have my name because I don't want to be sued and I don't think I did anything wrong."

Every time one uses either or both of these arguments, you look like a selfish, childish asshole.

Re:Once again, people

[Dripdry]

As simple as that, eh?

What about the law that protects these works for what many would view as an overly long and culturally/intellectually/societally injurious length of time?

Oh, right, change the laws.

What about the legal system that favors the powerful corporations who lobby to have these protections put up in the first place?

Why not boycott the companies and stop buying their products so they fail.

What about the fact that people are, and yet these entities are so large and so entrenched that nothing less than government intervention will change them?

Oh, change government you say?

Well what about the general helplessness and clueless nature of 90% of people about the system, how it runs, and how to change its "Brazil"-esque nature?

Change the culture, you say?

Well how about big media's hold on news media, entertainment, and advertising? ...yet MORE questions that can't be answered easily and that constantly come up on Slashdot.

It really isn't that simple, and all it takes is a little intellectual rigor to realize that. Using a generalized ad hominem attack just because someone says they want to pirate something doesn't seem useful.

It sounds like my dad when he wants to ignore facts and what is in front of him in favor of hoping that the problem will just magically disappear. It's not taking personal responsibility for a system which, from certain points of view, is incredibly fucked up.

Just my two cents.

Re:Once again, people

[DerekLyons]

He may as well have said, literally, "I don't want them to have my name because I don't want to be sued and I don't think I did anything wrong."
 
Every time one uses either or both of these arguments, you look like a selfish, childish asshole.

And really, that's my problem with the pirates and why they get so little sympathy from the general public - their argument ultimately boils down "I don't want to respect anyone's rights and want everyone else to be forced to give up their rights". Then this guys comes along and claims "and while I shouldn't be forced to respect the rights of others, they should be forced to respect the rights I've created for myself out of whole cloth".

Re:Once again, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving away or selling unauthorized copies of a work, be they physical or electronic, is not fair use.

Wow you have decided as judge, jury and executioner what is fair use and what is not. You must be a RIAA troll.

Re:Once again, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirating doesn't harm anyone or anything. Suing people does.

Re:Once again, people

[Anonymous Coward]

You look like the only childish asshole here by making-believe that ANYONE (even one person), will read your corporate like comments here, and change their ability to download as much as they can... even more, now that you opened your mouth, and removed all doubt about how stupid you actually are.

First of all NOONE is giving away anything here.. it is called sharing songs, programs and movies that people find interesting.

Even Microsoft has this point correct, when they see you have a pirated copy of their wares.. and they give you the option to upgrade to a legitimate copy... not make a Federal case out of it.

What is happening on the Net.. is NO different that when someone plays their radio on the beach, and many other people get to listen and enjoy the music.. and some even record it so they can determine whether they want to investigate or invest in the band further.

Got back to college... keep learning your faulty psychology.. and stop wasting our bandwidth.

Re:Once again, people

[mjeffers]

If you think it's important and it should be changed get up off your ass and do something about it. Is changing laws, culture and government easy? No, but considering in America both women and African Americans managed to change all of those things without the right to vote I don't have much sympathy for the "I want to download Avatar for free" crowd.

Either get off your ass and do something or shut the fuck up. Bitching on the internet that change is hard is LITERALLY the least you can do.

Re:Once again, people

[DaveV1.0]

What, exactly, have YOU done to do any of the above? What exactly have you done to take personal responsibility for the system and to fix the system?

Re:Once again, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Ack- the IP address isn't identifying HIM though. His IP is connected to a routing device most likely. So it could be him, his room mate, a neighbour, and very likely there have been allot of other people who have accessed and used his Internet connection/IP address to access the Internet. We're all essentially ISPs. We SHOULD be protected just like ISPs. It is an injustice to blame the owner of the Internet access account for all happenings just because the last person in the chain is not a corporation. This is wrong and unethical. This is why universities and ISPs should NOT log this information to begin with. They are not required to by law and therefore shouldn't.

Re:Once again, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, the RIAA needs a new marketing model. They aren't losing any money to downloads and these lawsuits are just an extension of their control and power to force people to pay more and have a better monopoly.

Re:why do people get so riled up protecting thieve

[jonwil]

Copyright infringement is neither Piracy OR Theft, despite what the RIAA/MPAA FUD would have you believe.

It is still illegal though and yes I agree that ISPs should be required to hand over subscriber details but ONLY after the copyright holder has shown proof that was sharing at .

Bleh

[sonicmerlin]

This is just another example of the poison of Corporatism spreading its infection throughout American politics. I wish Obama's calls for campaign finance reform were much more progressive. Perhaps he doesn't want to step on anyone's toes in an election year where a slow-moving Congress obstructed by Republicans simply can't act on finance reform until next year.

I just hope that if Democrats maintain a majority in both legislatures after November that Obama will go full-speed ahead on reform (abolition of corporate personhood, super-strict limits on corporate donations, perhaps even government financing of campaigns).

Re:Bleh

[cdrguru]

The only sort of government financing I want to see is where the government pays for all of a candidate's expenses for the duration of the election. This would enable anyone to be a candidate.

Even better, I could run for President every four years and the House on the off years. I could live as a perpetual canadidate without ever having to actually subject people to my (likely) bad representation. So could thousands if not millions of others. We could have elections with a million Presidential candidates.

This would be another way to end what is left of welfare in the US. No more money unless you are running for some elected office.

Yes, I would be all for complete government financing of candidates.

you do not have the right to break the law

[Bauguss]

All these comments about privacy. My understanding of our basic rights is that we have them as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. All of you are blindly trying to say we all have the right to P2P. While true, we do not have the right to hand out our music or games to others for free. It is one thing to burn a friend a cd of some songs, its entirely different to burn 1000 discs and hand them out blindly. You would be infringing upon someone's right to make a living. (yes even the evil RIAA) I hate them as much as the next person, but most P2P that I see is illegal sharing of (mostly porn) stuff people have no rights to give away en mass. Those of you that participate in this practice, sorry, but law enforcement should have the power to throw your ass in jail. It is thieving plain and simple.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law

[h00manist]

Indeed the right to privacy should not be abused as a shield from the law, as it often is, by government and corporations. The law does however evolve with the times, new realities, public pressure, cultural changes, momentary needs, etc. It's not set in stone forever. "The law", all aspects of it, includes custom, tradition, social tolerance, a bunch of stuff that's not even written anywhere - like it or not. Copyright and IP law is at a crossroads moment, is widely ignored, ridicularized, called obsolete, bypassed, complained about, in all circles, even in copyright owners homes and offices. That's a sign that it's modification could happen, but that chance exists under pressure only -- they won't voluntarily give up their rights. Eroding the actual profits they gain will help, their ability to enforce the law, public perception of the morality and right of the law, every change in culture, interpretation, opinion, practice, will eventually be possible to become law.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes_you_do.

I can and do whatever the fuck I want. At about 12 I learned that I am the master of my fate and no one has any inherent right to tell me what to do, laws be damned.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law

[celle]

"While true, we do not have the right to hand out our music or games to others for free."

Oh yes you do. The number given away is irrelevant. When you buy something it is yours, period, to do with what you like and that includes giving it away. It's called the right of ownership and it's a very basic right in this country. Never mind the number of wars fought over that right. Stop beating around the bush, this is what it's really about. Remember that original copyright law states giving a limited monopoly to a creator in exchange for getting the creation into society immediately to benefit society not the creator. The monopoly is not longer limited and the benefit to society is muted and the lost resources and research eaten up in court fights is definitely a draw on society.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law

[siride]

The idea with copyright is that you, the consumer, *don't* actually own the content. You own a copy, which is a limited use grant of the content. Only the copyright owner actually owns it and is free to do with it what he or she pleases, including giving it away for free to anyone. You do not have that freedom.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law

[Anonymous Coward]

What right to make a living?

Is it infringing on the RIAA's right to make a living if you don't buy an album? No? Then why does it suddenly become an infringement when you don't buy it, but you do pirate it?

Piracy doesn't inflict harm. From the content owner's perspective, it is exactly the same as no action.

I really hope society doesn't go through all this shit again when replicators are invented.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law

[DaveV1.0]

The monopoly is not longer limited

That is a bald-faced lie. It is, in fact, limited by law to "70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication". That is in no way unlimited.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law

[cdrguru]

The essential point of piracy is the destruction of revenue from digital goods. If someone can sell it, then it can be redistributed for free making the original seller give up on selling it. You can't compete with free.

This has already happened in China with music - officially there is no more music sold in China. It is very soon to happen in the US. Sure iTunes sells millions of songs a year - but they have maybe 2% of the overall download marketplace with the rest being free and usually pirated. iTunes will be operating as long as there are iPods, though, because for the older generation that doesn't know how to use P2P software iTunes is the only thing they can use.

Looking at it from a perspective of entertainment time vs. cost, movies are already free. You can stream an unlimited amount of content from Netflix for $8 a month. Saving it is perhaps somewhat more difficult, but not impossible. Why buy the Avatar DVD when you can watch it as many times as you want (probably once) for no (additional) cost?

The end is coming very soon for anyone selling digital goods. The pirates have pretty much won this battle. The result will be the end of music promotion and most movie production and what is left will remind you of AM radio with non-stop product placement.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law

[Anonymous Coward]

"it's right because it's the law. it's law because it's right" sorry but this is circular reasoning at its worst. ...and no, no one has a 'right' to make a living either. they have a right to TRY. it is not the responsibility of society to prop up broken buisnesses.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law

[Anonymous Coward]

fine, then they shouldn't be SELLING the stuff. they should be advertising it as a lease, with a contract that must be signed for every transaction. they don't want to do this of course because it would scare most people off, as it should. they want to pass their false scarcity off as a sale. fuck them.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, nor am I well versed in copyright law. I do, however, have the preconceived notion that copyright law was a right to copy, and the only ownership involved was over the right to copy.

Once this was all in tangible mediums, but now it's more complex. But if I purchase something under the copyright law, why should the owner of the copyright have more powers then the power over the right to copy, even if it is easier to copy things?

Right of distribution of a copy is not covered by the principal of a copyright(whether or not the law upholds it). Nor is right to make money, or to hold on to a business model that worked once. I can see how that is disappointing that can be to copyright holders, but the reality of what works and doesn't has been changed. Whether anyone likes it or not. Demanding the world to change, because you don't want to just doesn't work so well.

Anyone who thinks any other group of people, including those in government, can guarantee the right to avoid the circumstances technology has brought, are fools. They will sooner or later lose out, because no one has the resources to fight everyone.

Re:why do people get so riled up protecting thieve

[hanabal]

ISPs should be required to hand over subscriber details but ONLY after the copyright holder has shown proof that was sharing at .

how about after a legally obtained warrant has been given to the ISP by a law enforcement officer

Re:why do people get so riled up protecting thieve

[DaveV1.0]

I am not quite sure about the last bit of your post, but if I am reading it right, you are asking for a catch-22 involving all civil suits and subpoenas.

The purpose of the subpoena is to gather evidence in a case, but you want the case to be proved before the subpoena is served. If the case is proved, then the subpoena is not necessary, but if the case is not proved you don't want them to be able to get a subpoena to gather evidence to prove the case.

This would be a double-edged sword because then if one wished to sue a company, one would have to prove the case against the company before getting a subpoena to get evidence against the company.

"THEY" don't have to prove it.

[way2trivial]

The requirement on THEY is much less than you might like to believe

"THEY" have to prove your IP was the connection

then it's your responsibility to mount a defense
"YOU" have to PROVE you were hacked
then YOU must PROVE the hacker did it

Re:"THEY" don't have to prove it.

[sumdumass]

They have to prove more then just it was your IP.

The laws they are going after people on does not say "anyone who pays for an internet connection", they say anyone who does specific activities. They can use the fact that the internet connection is in your name to list you as a likely suspect and attempt to get more evidence like your hard drive contents and so on. But as soon as the possibility of another user (legal or not) is present, they have to prove it was you specifically.

You do not have to prove someone else did something, all you have to do is prove it was possible and that the evidence doesn't likely support you doing it yourself. You do not become the plaintiff's private investigator just because you want to defend yourself against the accusations.

Re:"THEY" don't have to prove it.

[Meski]

The requirement on THEY is much less than you might like to believe

"THEY" have to prove your IP was the connection

then it's your responsibility to mount a defense "YOU" have to PROVE you were hacked then YOU must PROVE the hacker did it

- I supply a log from my router of which MACs connected to which DHCP supplied IP addresses, with timestamps. It's as valid as the ISP supplied logs.

The court is corrupted by corporate influence

[Anonymous Coward]

The supreme court is supremely corrupt. When are the people going to realize just how high the evil goes?

Re:The court is corrupted by corporate influence

[sonicmerlin]

I think the vast majority of people realized how corrupt the Supreme Court was after the 2000 Bush vs. Gore decision that essentially gave the presidential election to Bush. The subsequent fallout of that disastrously political decision will be felt for decades due to Bush's abuse of his position.

Re:The court is corrupted by corporate influence

[butlerm]

I think the vast majority of people realized how corrupt the Supreme Court was after the 2000 Bush vs. Gore decision that essentially gave the presidential election to Bush

If they had decided the other way, wouldn't many people have a legal argument in favor of the proposition that they essentially gave the presidential election to Gore? There were lawyers on both sides of the controversy. If it was an open and shut case, it would never have gone to trial in the first place.

Re:The court is corrupted by corporate influence

[sonicmerlin]

I think the real issue is that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction, and certainly no precedent, in treading the waters they did. The most insulting aspect of their decision was declaring it a one-time, unique situation that could not be used in the future as precedent.

They used an injunction to prevent the completion of the Florida recount, and after 2 days of "deliberation" declared the recount a failure because it had gone past its original stated deadline. The disingenuity of the SCOTUS's tactics was evident in its vote being split along party lines, with the criticism from the dissenters mainly being about the Court stepping far outside its intended boundaries.

In other words they had no right to interfere, and by all accounts I've read Gore would have won had a full recount been completed.

Automated Fines/Taxes

[nurb432]

If *everyone* disobeys, they will just automate the process, strip of us of more rights without due process and end up just adding a RIAA tax.

Re:Automated Fines/Taxes

[h00manist]

If *everyone* disobeys, they will just automate the process, strip of us of more rights without due process and end up just adding a RIAA tax.

It seems everyone does disobey, music is basically copied freely now, more than sold, software is not too different, movies and books are going that direction.

First Amendment right?

[nurb432]

I would think this is more of a 4th amendment thing.

Re:why do people get so riled up protecting thieve

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking something without paying is theft.

BitTorrent and the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a quick question for you legal-inclined slashdotters. If the BitTorrent protocol were designed to store IP addresses in an obfuscated manor, would DMCA anti-circumvention prohibit others from unobfuscating those IP addresses?

Just a thought.

IPopoly

[Barrinmw]

I want Milton Bradley to come out with a version of Monopoly that involves the players being Pirates and they try to combat the rigors of IP law as they go around the board and collect rare and valuable IP. True someone else can make it, but it would be satire and not parody.

Original?

[Joce640k]

Um, we've got this thing called "Google", you can type words into it and it finds pages with those words on them.

You could try it with those words...see what happens.

Re:Original?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Um, we've got this thing called "Google", you can type words into it and it finds pages with those words on them.

You could try it with those words...see what happens.

We've got these things called "eyes"*, attached via optical nerve to this thing called a "brain"; in conjunction one can apply cognitive ability to the symbols on the screen and convert them not only to words, but a message converying meaning as well.

My post rather strongly implied that I knew it wasn't original -- how else to infer (sardonically) a statement on copyright by such an AC's post, unless it's copyrighted material? This aside from the fact that I said "I'd be impressed if it was original... but as it is it's just offtopic".

* to those of you without eyes -- well, yes, I guess I AM an insensitive clod.

Re:why do people get so riled up protecting thieve

[Anonymous Coward]

...which the law enforcement office was given by a judge who based on the legally obtained proof presented to him/her was satisfied that there were enough grounds to grant said warrant.

Why do people still use BT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I often wonder why so many people are still using bittorrent? The old fashion approaches seem to me to be much less of a risk for the leecher/ downloader. All of these court cases and even legislation activities would be a moot point if the media companies were denied a public entry point to monitor all downloads globally as they essentially currently do with BT today.

Re:why do people get so riled up protecting thieve

[Xtifr]

Copyright infringement is neither Piracy OR Theft

Unless you speak English. If all you can speak is Legalese, then you may have a point, but I don't think I'd want to have a conversation with you in that case! :)

In plain English, Forbidden Planet stole from Shakespeare, even though no laws at all were broken.

Blame the juries

[mangu]

You are right about the whole of the western world becoming like police states, but that's mostly due to the ridiculous ease with which any individual person can win a million-dollar litigation against an organization, be it a corporation, government agency, or even a professional such as a doctor.

When juries started to automatically side with the claimant just because the other side appeared to have money, no matter which stupid thing the plaintiff did, the modern nanny state was born. A nanny state is identical to a police state in that privacy does not exist. Parents *must* monitor their babies.

When citizens stop acting as responsible adults and start behaving like small children it's only to be expected that they will relinquish the rights of adults. With every right comes a responsibility.

Re:Blame the juries

[Anonymous Coward]

You are joking right? This has nothing to do with juries and everything to do with the people we elect to run our government. They take away our rights and instill laws, not the you or I. We have so many laws for just about anything it is ridiculous. I am surprised chewing gum isn't illegal in this country yet. Our rights are no longer rights at all; they are privileges. Privileges, that can be taken away at a moments notice. Look at the Patriot Act, and that should tell you a thing or two about our precious rights.

People really need to stop pinning the blame on other regular people and start taking responsibility for allowing evil men and women to rule us.

Re:why do people get so riled up protecting thieve

[Anonymous Coward]

I never correct people on their English abilities, but 'neither' goes in hand with 'nor' not 'or'.

BitBlinder?

[Anonymous Coward]

Always download your files using someone else's IP?

http://bitblinder.com/

Re:why do people get so riled up protecting thieve

[jonwil]

No, the point is, you go to court, show your proof that was being served by at and ask the judge to allow you to subpoena the ISP. Then if the judge agrees that the evidence is good enough, the ISP is subpoenaed and the account holder is identified and brought into the lawsuit.

AMAZON

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1272756967/ref=sr_nr_seeall_1?ie=UTF8&keywords=alan%20parsons%20time&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aalan%20parsons%20time%2Ci%3Adigital-music

the Live version is best.

Uh, yes?

[deblau]

If you might have broken a law, even if it's a stupid law, you can't hide behind freedom of speech to keep from being sued. Maybe the First Amendment or fair use will be a valid defense, but you will only know that if they get the chance to sue you in the first place.

More like the right to serve a subpoena

[Protoslo]

This isn't even a warrant, it's civil discovery. The evidence the RIAA already has (that some IP downloaded some song, and that the university assigned this IP to a primary owner/user) would be more than enough to establish "probable cause" for a criminal warrant. It would be absolutely insane to assert a higher burden of proof than the criminal standard in these civil cases just because they "involve the internet."

Piracy - it's for kids.

[h00manist]

We've never had the unlimited right to share what does not belong to us.

Not legally, duly coded into law, but in practice, you download a couple programs and you're on, free music. It's what every kid on the planet wishes to do as much as possible. Legal consequence? What's that? It's just music.

The problem with that:

[Burz]

About 98% of the people with pretty faces and talent (and all those who identify with them) will be against that movement. It would probably fail.

The better strategy may be to find ways to put online communications beyond surveillance. Then you robustly benefit all those freedoms you listed.

fuel 2 the anonymous P2P

[Anonymous Coward]

viva MUTE!

bzzt

[way2trivial]

http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/Legal-FAQs/Civil-Versus-Criminal-Law/Federal/what-is-the-difference-between-criminal-law-a.html

The burden of proof is also different in civil and criminal law. Plaintiffs in a civil law suit only need to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is 51% or more liable (responsible) for the damages. In a criminal matter the defendant does not have to prove that he is innocent. But rather, the prosecutor has to prove to the judge or jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. This burden is very high.

Re:bzzt

[sumdumass]

That doesn't really seem to matter here as simply saying you were assigned an IP doesn't show you as liable. This is especially the case when others can use the IP with or without your permission. The laws do not state that the owner of an IP is liable or guilty, it states that the person participating in the acts are.

We have already seen this play out when the RIAA sued some woman or granny who had the case dropped and then the RIAA went back after her kids or grandchildren. I forget the name of the case but it happened back in 2004-2006 or so.

Anyways, pointing to the owner of the IP would likely show that person as being responsible. However, open wifi access or simply having a TOR endpoint on your system would inject enough doubt that they would have to show more evidence in your participation. They still have to show that you are responsible or liable for the damages, you do not have to show that anyone else is, only they you are not.