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:Promised Land? BS

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why people think they have a right to privacy if they've committed a crime; and theft IS a crime! If I stole a car and someone knew about it and didn't say who they were when asked, they would be aiding and abetting. And my bet is some people have stolen enough music and movies to equal or exceed the value of the average automobile.

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:Promised Land? BS

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no crime, you shit-eating pig fucker. We've been around that block countless times. Copyright infringement is not stealing, and this is a civil matter. Go back to dicking farm animals and leave the legal analysis to non-deviants.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood the mentality of people who sit and seed torrents. Yes, OK, I have illegally downloaded my fair share of material. But I would never assist another in committing that crime - I recognize that what I am doing is illegal (and wrong in my PoV).

Yes, I'm a leecher. If torrent clients did not have anti-leech capabilities, I would upload at a constant 0B/s. But I can't, so I try to avoid torrents whenever possible. Which should be always, but hey, I'm not infallible by any means - I should be in jail.

I guess I'll probably never get to the point where I can truly test my own principles: Would I plead guilty to the judge and rot in jail (and fines), or plead innocent and forever condemn myself?

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: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.