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

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: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: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.