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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

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 ...

[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.

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?

[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?

[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).

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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

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

[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.

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: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 .

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

[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: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: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.

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: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".

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.