Slashdot Mirror
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."'"
At issue here is theft of product. Why are we so concerned about the rights of the thieves? Everyone does it, because every one thinks it's impossible to enforce any rules, not because they don't understand that it's theft. That's the real problem
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.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
These thieves stealing shit as they please deserve to be caught and given their day in court.
Stealing _IS_ stealing no matter what ridiculous excuse is used (it's just ones and zeros etc..)
Bogus excuses do not change the fact that it is stealing and is illegal.
The retards who keep stealing music are the front line in the defense of internet privacy rights. Do you see anything BAD about that? Wouldn't political speech or expressive speech be a MUCH better way for us to fight to protect our privacy on the Internet?
A bunch of copiers--who provide no value and are just parasites--are driving the focus of the discussion here. That's bullshit. Privacy is important and responsible people (look at the real world, look at the legislative bodies of the world!) don't care about the copiers.
Copiers are going to get screwed by the governing bodies of the world. That's a foregone conclusion. Work to protect privacy by defending something that is defensible!
And that's my rant for today.
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'.
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.
That a penalty is unjust has no bearing on whether or not the proceedings are unfair.
If we were talking about a device, you'd have a point. Instead, it's just more smokescreen on your part.
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.
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.
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.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.