Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Piracy Lawyers Accuse Blind Man of Downloading Films
souravzzz writes "As the mass-lawsuits against BitTorrent users in the United States drag on, detail on the collateral damage this extortion-like scheme is costing becomes clear. It is likely that thousands of people have been wrongfully accused of sharing copyrighted material, yet they see no other option than to pay up. One of the cases that stands out is that of a California man who's incapable of watching the adult film he is accused of sharing because he is legally blind."
What if the movie he downloaded caused his blindness in the first place!? Check his palms!
Was the film in braille?
Maybe he just wanted to listen to the deep conversation and intricate plot points. You know, just like some people buy playboy to read the articles...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
the network-security professional recounts the rookie mistake that got him into this mess.
"I didn't have time to set up the wireless network in my old apartment,"
This is not a mistake. Providing a free wireless Internet connection to neighbors is legal. An IP address is not a person.
Currently the minimal threshold for filing suit is way too low. The "rights holders" here surely have some colorable claim that infringement happened (i.e. some kind of network monitoring log, and a claim from an ISP that the monitored IP address belonged to this guy). So far US courts have decided that this is enough to file a lawsuit, something which creates a lot of work for lawyers and greatly advantages those who file extortionate suits -- the cost of actually defending a suit like this (tends of thousands of dollars) is much higher than the cost of settling. Worse, by filing suit the plaintiffs get the right to use the courts to coerce the defendant into assisting in the investigation (and to pay the costs of that!).
A second problem is that even if you are successful in defending a lawsuit you are unlikely to get your legal (let alone indirect) costs reimbursed.
So, the solution is: first, to require more evidence before a lawsuit can be filed, and, second, to make cost shifting the default when a lawsuit is dismissed on the pleading.
Just because someone is legally blind, does not mean they have no sight whatsoever. There is a massive difference. I do know people who are legally blind who download and watch plenty of things. They can see, but just not very well. It is possible this guy could watch porn, he just can't legally drive a car.
A former RIAA lobbyist, Beryl Howell, is a now a federal judge ruling on these copyright extortion cases and siding with the extortionists:
This appointment mischief was covered previouslyon Slashdot.
As pointed out previously, Beryl Howard is a Obama appointee, and not his first RIAA appointee.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
The mere suggestion that he swaps illicit smut online could jeopardize his career.
At very least, HR would have questioned the status of his being blind and taken away his handicapped parking privileges.
Have gnu, will travel.
Yeah, no. That makes no sense, and that's not the joke. The joke comes from the very old myth that masturbating makes one grow hair on their palms (hence everyone will know you're a bad person).
Don't explain if you don't know the explanation.
As someone that knows, you might find it interesting to understand the definition of "legally blind" vs. more functional blindness.
I lived with a blind girl for a while. She was functionally blind and could see only extremely bright and extremely high contrast objects. For the most part, she couldn't see anything and was around five years old before she realized other people could see things.
A friend of the blind girl's was "legally blind". This meant that she couldn't get a driver's license but otherwise was quite functional. She could certainly watch TV, go to movies and read large-print books.
Legally blind does not mean "can't watch a movie" in any respect.
I think the biggest reason people pirate movies is simply convenience. It's the same reason people use Redbox and Netflix. The problem with Redbox is the selection is extremely limited. It really only works if you are interested in the newest and most popular movies. Redbox also requires a physical trip, and while a few mile drive may not seem like much, a few miles is still a lot more than none (particularly if you live through Minnesota winters like me).
Netflix has a lot better selection, but it still doesn't come anywhere close to what is available to pirate (there are even out-of-print movies). A lot of Netflix's movies aren't available for streaming either, so a 15min torrent download is about 2 days faster than waiting 2 days for mail. I'm not sure what kind of internet you have that it takes days to download a movie, but a typical ripped/encoded movie torrent is only about 2GB.
Now I'm not saying these reasons excuse/justify movie piracy, I'm just giving some thoughts on why people still do it. I bet a lot of people don't even know about these anti-piracy lawsuits either (it seems like common knowledge to a slashdot user), and probably assume they aren't going to be sued for millions of dollars because that would be insane. ;)
"What if you interpret stealing to be "Obtaining non-free content without paying for it". Now it doesn't matter whether you shoplift it, or download it. No matter which way you try to bend words, downloading movies is a form of theft"
Interpretation would not be enough. You would have to redefine the word theft.
You commit two major sins in this debate. The first is the straw man of assuming that just because someone objects to equating copyright infringement with theft that they approve of copyright infringement. The second straw man is that in your attempt to ridicule to opponent you misrepresent him by mentioning a coupel of his possible lesser important arguments, leaving out the biggest reason that copyright infringement is not theft.
Theft takes an object away from the original owner. If someone steals my car, the spiteful part of me may hope that the thief won't enjoy it, but the major reason I'm feeling pissed off is that I no longer have a car. Copyright infringement does no such thing. Since copyright infringement doesn't share the most important property of theft, it is not theft.
Copyright infringement, may take a sale away from the copyright holder. This is by no means certain, the infringer may not have legally licensed/purchased even if he couldn't get it for free. At best you can say that copyright infringement take away a potential sale. In some cases this is not even true, since some infringers does indeed end up purchasing the product.
So these two actions are different and the reason copyright holders want to equate them is an attempt to get more sympathy from the public. This attempt at redefining the word "theft" is disingenuous but you seem to have fallen for it nonetheless.
Note that this post does not mean that I approve of copyright infringement. It is a different action, but it may still be objectionable.
Now it so happened in the days of old Edo, as Tokyo was once called, that the storytellers told marvelous tales of the wit and wisdom of His Honorable Honor, Ooka Tadasuke.
This famous judge never refused to hear a complaint, even if it seemed strange or unreasonable. People sometimes came to his court with the most unusual cases, but Ooka always agreed to listen. And the strangest case of all was the famous Case of the Stolen Smell.
It all began when a poor student rented a room over a tempura shop - a shop where fried food could be bought. The student was a most likeable young man, but the shopkeeper was a miser who suspected everyone of trying to get the better of him. One day he heard the student talking with one of his friends.
"It is sad to be so poor that one can only afford to eat plain rice," the friend complained.
"Oh," said the student, "I have found a very satisfactory answer to the problem. I eat my rice each day while the shopkeeper downstairs fries his fish. The smell comes up, and my humble rice seems to have much more flavor. It is really the smell, you know, that makes things taste so good."
The shopkeeper was furious. To think that someone was enjoying the smell of his fish for nothing! "Thief!" he shouted, "I demand that you pay me for the smells you have stolen."
"A smell is a smell," the young man replied. "Anyone can smell what he wants to. I will pay you nothing!"
Scarlet with rage, the shopkeeper rushed to Ooka's court and charged the student with theft. Of course, everyone laughed at him, for how could anyone steal a smell? Ooka would surely send the man about his business. But to everyone's astonishment, the judge agreed to hear the case.
"Every man is entitled to his hour in court," he explained. "If this man feels strongly enough about his smell to make a complaint, it is only right that I, as city magistrate, should hear the case." He frowned at the amused spectators.
Gravely, Ooka sat on the dais and heard the evidence. Then he delivered his verdict.
"The student is obviously guilty," he said severely. "Taking another person's property is theft, and I cannot see that a smell is different from any other property."
The shopkeeper was delighted, but the student was horrified. He was very poor, and he owed the shopkeeper for three month's smelling. He would surely be thrown into prison.
"How much money have you?," Ooka asked him.
"Only five mon, Honorable Honor," the boy replied. "I need that to pay my rent, or I will be thrown out into the street."
"Let me see the money," said the judge.
The young man held out his hand. Ooka nodded and told him to drop the coins from one hand to the other.
The judge listened to the pleasant clink of the money and said to the shopkeeper, "You have now been paid. If you have any other complaints in the future, please bring them to the court. It is our wish that all injustices be punished and all virtue rewarded.
"But most Honorable Honor," the shopkeeper protested, "I did not get the money! The thief dropped it from one hand to the other. See! I have nothing." He held up his empty hands to show the judge.
Ooka stared at him gravely. "It is the court's judgement that the punishment should fit the crime. I have decided that the price of the smell of food shall be the sound of money. Justice has prevailed as usual in my court."