Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders Verizon Subscriber Identities Sealed
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of the mass 'John Doe' cases based on single BitTorrent downloads of films, Malibu Media v. Does 1-13, a pro se litigant made a motion to quash the subpoena. The Court granted a stay of the subpoena, pending its decision on the motion to quash. Unfortunately for John Doe, Verizon had turned over its subscribers' identities 5 days BEFORE the response was due, thus possibly mooting both the stay and the motion to quash. Fortunately for John Doe, the Judge wasn't too happy about this, ordered the information sealed, directed plaintiff's lawyers to destroy any copies, and ruled that they can't use the information unless and until the Court denies the motion to quash."
What did you expect? Come on...
Copying is not stealing, nothing is lost, as a matter of fact. things are duplicated. I for one, welcome my new Overlord 'thief' that duplicates my money! (and then there is this other little detail... they haven't been found guilty... (yet) )
Basically what we've got is Verizon saying, "Oh goodie, we're so eager to ignore our user's privacy that we're going to jump right on mailing out their personal information to any third party who might be interested." Yeah, yeah, they have a court order, and obviously you have to comply with that, but you certainly don't have to go and do it early.
here you go :
"In one of the mass 'John Doe' cases based on single BitTorrent downloads of films, Malibu Media v. Does 1-13, a pro se litigant made a motion to quash the subpoena. The Court granted a stay of the subpoena, pending its decision on the motion to quash. Unfortunately for John Doe, Verizon had turned over its subscribers' identities 5 days BEFORE the response was due, thus possibly mooting both the stay and the motion to quash. Fortunately for John Doe, the Judge wasn't too happy about this, ordered the information sealed, directed plaintiff's lawyers to destroy any copies, and ruled that they can't use the information unless and until the Court denies the motion to quash."
Actually duplicating money would cause its value to drop, thus making everyone who isn't duplicating a little bit poorer.
But ISPs do shit like that all the time. If they get a subpoena for your info in a "John Doe" form what they are supposed to do is notify you so you can fight it, if you wish. While filing a "John Doe" suit is a common and valid legal strategy when you are going after someone but lack the ability to identify them directly yet, that doesn't mean it is automatic. It is also used as a fishing expedition, as seen in these cases, and in those cases courts may quash it.
Hence, your ISP tells you, and then if it isn't quashed (because you don't contest it or because a judge decides it is fine), they hand over the info.
The problem is many ISPs just don't give a fuck about their customers because they know they lack options.
Copying is not stealing
Indeed, if it were then there would have been no need for copyright or infringement thereof as formal and separate concepts in the law because the property laws would have covered it. The fact that "copyright" does NOT fall under property law and that the "promotion of the progress of useful arts and sciences" is mentioned specifically and separately in the US Constitution, apart from any language concerning property, underscores their separateness and distinctness. The term "intellectual property" was invented and promoted by those whose interests were served by erroneously conflating the concepts of property and copyright or patent law. Indeed, the term "intellectual property" ought not to be used when referring to these matters because it injects bias and error into any discussion of patent or copyright.
I think it's something like this:
Malibu Media: "These addresses belong to the people who pirated our stuff. We demand their identities!"
The Judge: "Not so fast! I still have to check if you are entitled to this information."
Verizon, nonetheless: "Here, have their identities."
The Judge: "Fuck, are you deaf or just stupid? I said they can't have this information yet! Delete that shit right now or I'll open a can of legal whoopass on you."
Circumcision is child abuse.
A common misconception. Since money isn't tied to anything physical, there is no reason that more of it need lower the value. The current value is already arbitrary.
Wow, you've really skipped economics 101 haven't you...
The price of things is based on offer and demand. Suppose I offer to sell you a satsuma at $1 and you earn only $10 a day, I've priced it too high and you won't buy, so I'll lower my price until you and I agree that the price is okay for you and me (i.e. when you estimate the satsuma is worth whatever portion of your work I ask for it - your money, that is - and I estimate I can make a reasonable profit with your purchase).
Now suppose you photocopy a bunch of dollar bills: you come to be with $1000 in your pocket and buy my satsuma for $1 like it was nothing. What do you think I'm gonna do when I see you're so rich? I'll raise my price since I can make a bundle out of you and you don't care. So I'll sell my satsumas at, say, $20 a pop.
And if enough people photocopy dollar bills, everybody will rise their prices. Who's losing? Those who don't photocopy dollar bills. Suddenly, they can't afford my satsumas anymore. They've lost purchasing power. For them, their money has lost value.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
A common misconception. Since money isn't tied to anything physical, there is no reason that more of it need lower the value. The current value is already arbitrary. I will also point out that there are far more dollars in databases than we have currency, so we should be able to print quite a bit more without losing any real value at all; we would only be introducing a physical aspect to money that already exists.
I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. This is disinformation. It never ceases to amaze me how few people have any idea how money actually works. Of course, the government is happy to encourage and promote this lack of understanding and misinformation, as it works to their advantage in effectively stealing wealth from everyone with very few even understanding why they're effectively poorer.
Money is a representation of value, either in services/labor or in goods, regardless of whether the money is tied to something like gold or not, as gold is also a representation of value in goods or services/labor.
Back in the old West, a $20 gold coin would buy you one of the finest suits made. Today, that same amount of gold still buys a fine suit. It's only the amount in dollars that's changed. The comparative actual values have not changed. Back in the 1940s when dimes had a specific amount of silver, a gallon of gas cost two dimes, today those same dimes (with that amount of silver) still buys a gallon of gas. The relative values haven't changed, just the amount of money to equal that relatively static value has increased.
Printing more money dilutes the value of the money, effectively robbing everyone of the value they exchanged either in goods or services/labor for the money they hold. This is why gold prices have rocketed recently. Gold has not gained in value, rather, the dollar used to buy it has lost value.
The Fed engaging in "quantitative easing" (printing/creating more money from thin air) has caused the value of the money to drop dramatically, thus requiring more money to purchase the same value in goods and services/labor. This effectively robs everyone holding that currency of the value of the goods or services/labor they exchanged for that money.
It's theft on a really grand scale with everyone holding US dollars as the victims.
Every time the Fed does another "quantitative easing", your salary/pay is effectively cut.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I think your analysis is overly simplistic. It's true that inflation reduces the values of our savings and wages, but it also reduces the value of the debt we owe to others. That's how the country avoids paying off previously accrued debt: by inflating it into irrelevance.
I have no credit so it doesn't help me. But it's not true that inflation is only a loss for people who hold dollars, if they also owe.
.: Semper Absurda
Wow, you've really skipped economics 101 haven't you...
Actually, the problem is that it's likely he *did* take college economics. The bullshit Progressive/Keynesian fairy tales they teach the kids in schools and colleges these days is ridiculous, especially when it comes to economics. The last thing they want is for anyone to actually understand how they and future generations are being screwed.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Printing more money dilutes the value of the money, effectively robbing everyone of the value they exchanged either in goods or services/labor for the money they hold. This is why gold prices have rocketed recently. Gold has not gained in value, rather, the dollar used to buy it has lost value.
The Fed engaging in "quantitative easing" (printing/creating more money from thin air) has caused the value of the money to drop dramatically, thus requiring more money to purchase the same value in goods and services/labor. This effectively robs everyone holding that currency of the value of the goods or services/labor they exchanged for that money.
It's theft on a really grand scale with everyone holding US dollars as the victims.
Every time the Fed does another "quantitative easing", your salary/pay is effectively cut.
Strat
You Ron Paul'ers types need to pay attention to the inflation charts. Even with "Quantitative Easing", inflation has been holding steady and staying low the last few years. Should have it gone up? By all accounts, yes, but it did not.
Plus, there should always be a little inflation, so asking for none or complaining there is any, shows lack econ understanding.
Linux O Muerte!
That's one part of Econ that I never did understand... WHY should there always be a little inflation? What possible good could there be for my daily gallon of Red Bull to cost an extra 20 cents this year than it did last year? (Higher prices provide incentive to cut back, but that's a health benefit not an economic benefit.) Deflation makes sense - less money moving around, vendors make less, so they have less to pay in wages. The whole thing spirals down. But where's the problem with no inflation?
In theory, there is no problem with 0 inflation. The problem is attaining it. The Federal Reserve has powers, but unlike the powers of congress and the president and the supreme court, it takes a long time to see the affect of any policy they put in place. The economy is a supertanker and the Fed is a little bow thruster. It is difficult to know precisely what effect Fed policies will have, and how long it will take to get there.
That being said, we need a small amount of inflation in order to keep up with other countries. Most other counties subscribe to the "small amount of inflation" theory. If we had 0 inflation, prices overseas would rise (purchasing power would decrease) but our currency would stay the same (ie, a very strong dollar). This would be great for American tourists traveling abroad, but the companies in the US that make things would have a hard time selling things overseas. Most Japanese companies that export are having a difficult time with this. The Yen was roughly 110 Yen/Dollar about 4 years ago and now it hovers around 80 Yen/Dollar. This is a substantial difference and since most big Japanese companies source things and do machining inside Japan (their costs are mostly fixed to the Yen) some are really struggling to sell abroad.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Why can't journalists write more down-to-earth like this?
That's why I like reading Matt Taibbi's columns at Rolling Stone. He's the only person I've ever heard discussing technicalities around the financial crash of '08 in a manner that a normal, reasonably educated person could understand, and that's saying something, considering many of the matters being discusses are deliberately obfuscated in the financial world in order to hide the games they're playing.
Someone was (accused of) making a bunch of copies of something, without permission.
The accuser's lackey hands over information, before the Court decides if it's appropriate to enter it into evidence. The Court decides it isn't (yet) appropriate, and orders all copies of the evidence destroyed.
IOW, the accuser is now accused of making a bunch of copies of something, without permission. They just got a taste of their own medicine, at the hands of an unhappy judge.
As opposed to the laughable Laffer curve and the Supply side nut jobs that ran the economy off a cliff? There's nothing magicaly about Keynesian economics and it's not a fairy tale either. When nobody is spending money, somebody has to spent it or you never get anywhere.
As for future generations being screwed, when you compare the money spent by Keynes followers now with the much larger sum wasted on trickle down, I'll happily take Keynes, as at least it's done something positive for the economy, or have you forgotten what things were like before the stimulus?
If you don't believe in spontaneous wealth generation, then you sure as hell shouldn't like what the GOP keeps trying to dish up.
Doesn't count because:
A) Done by rich people
B) Done by a company
We should start holding the heads of companies liable for their crimes when they use the company as an instrument.
I think it's something like this:
Malibu Media: "These addresses belong to the people who pirated our stuff. We demand their identities!"
The Judge: "Not so fast! I still have to check if you are entitled to this information."
Verizon, nonetheless: "Here, have their identities."
The Judge: "Fuck, are you deaf or just stupid? I said they can't have this information yet! Delete that shit right now or I'll open a can of legal whoopass on you."
Well said.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
All Taxes are regressive. The rich can always avoid some (most) taxes, while the poor cannot avoid any. The progressive liberals keep thinking that taxes on the wealthy hurt the wealthy, when they hurt those the wealthy employ.
Case in point, the "luxury" tax on new Yachts and the like. When the tax was engaged, the rich simply stopped buying those items, killing the industries targeted, and causing unemployment as companies laid off workers due to much lower demands for said Luxuries. The tax was quickly repealed when it diddn't raise anywhere near the amount of revenue it claimed, and the corresponding loss of revenue and unemployment benefits out weighed the revenue it did generate.
The problem is, the Laffer Curve is more than accurate, however we are just left guessing at where "maximum revenue" is generated. My thesis is that revenue is maxed out when people are willing to endure taxes for the things they want (not need), which is one of the reasons I'm fairly Libertarian on things like currently illicit pharmaceuticals. Legalize drugs, create jobs and industry in the process, tax (and regulate) the crap out of them, and use the revenue to fund government. At some point, the Laffer Curve kicks in, and people STOP doing drugs (good thing) and revenue starts to decline (see Cigarettes for example).
IF you do this for all products / services deemed "harmful" to society, but otherwise "victimless", such as Alcohol, Drugs, Porn and Prostitution, we'd have all the money to do all the things we want as a society. And taxes become "voluntary" for all, including the poor. You won't have to pay taxes if you don't want what is taxed.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Indeed, I did take economics (required undergrad general studies course) and it was mostly bullshit. You mention how retarded Keynesian theory is, the Keynes theory is plain laughable. Give a rich man money and he'll pocket it. Nobody hires out of altruism, they hire because they can sell more than they can produce. If they're producing more than they're selling, no amount of tax breaks is going to get them to hire anyone. Likewise, if he's selling more than he can produce, his taxes going up (likewise his competetitors) isn't going to have him laying off workers.
OTOH, give a poor or middle class man a tax break and he'll spend it, putting right back into the economy, raising sales for everyone, encouraging him to hire.
History has proven this. Clinton got Congress to give tax breaks to middle and low income people, and by the time he left office the economy was booming, unemployment was low, and the Federal budget was balanced.
Then Bush lowered taxes on the rich "to stimulate the economy" and left office with the worst economy since the Great Depression and the highest defecit in history (and two wars which was the cause of the Bush and now Obama defecits).
Economics is by no means a science. It's all smoke, mirrors, and trickery. Little of it is logical, and most is not only unproven but has been proven false -- yet they still tech the bullshit.
Free Martian Whores!
The Laffer curve is just a specific case of the mean value theorem in Calculus, worded slightly differently. It is indisputably correct. The only question is if we're to the left or to the right of the maximum (or if the maximum lies at 100% taxation).
Unfortunately, because it's inconvenient for certain political ideologies, people have taken to disputing it for political reasons, not realizing they're simultaneously disputing Calculus when they do so.