Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Court Allows Unmasking of P2P Downloaders

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the i-didn't-realize-we-had-to-wear-masks dept.

Privacy 244

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."'"

cancel ×

244 comments

Title is nonsense (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055540)

A better title would be "court upholds right to serve warrant".

Re:Title is nonsense (1, Insightful)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055560)

I'd like them to definitively prove that he was the user behind the IP address.

Re:Title is nonsense (0)

mgessner (46612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055618)

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.

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."

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?

Re:Title is nonsense (4, Informative)

SJ2000 (1128057) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055652)

It's civil law, you don't have to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Re:Title is nonsense (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055664)

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?

There was a story about the UK government wanting all WiFi owners to keep records/logs of users.
It'll be funny if they ever pass something like this considering how many people in the UK use a
ISP provided router like the BT HomeHub with open wifi and a default password.

Re:Title is nonsense (3, Informative)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055744)

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 (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055948)

Re:Title is nonsense (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055930)

This reminds me of members of the Liberty community who insist they don't have to pay income taxes. They use all kinds of legal arguments such as "my kids are my employees and I pay them, so I deduct that amount" or "I don't have a social security number so I don't need to pay," and so on.

Of course the judge immediately throws these arguments out. And the judge will likely throw out the "Somebody used my Wifi line to steal - it wasn't me" argument too. His goal is to enforce the law, not to let you escape.

Re:Title is nonsense (4, Insightful)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055994)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056068)

You do realize all the prosecution has to do is convince the judge/jury that you are likely guilty?

Please explain how it's "likely" it's me, when anyone within a hundred yards can connect to me wifi.

Let's see, if there are 15 houses within that radius, and 2/3 of them have computers, that's 10 other people besides me who could have done it. Not to mention people with laptops in the car driving by.

Please, explain how it's "likely" me when I'm one of 11 people who have potential access.

And that leaves aside the issue of proving, even if it is traced to a computer in my house, which user did it.

Re:Title is nonsense (2, Insightful)

siride (974284) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056238)

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 (2, Insightful)

ThreeGigs (239452) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055644)

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 (4, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055770)

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 (2, Insightful)

Ambiguous Puzuma (1134017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055970)

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 (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056002)

He is not saying "I didn't do it, it wasn't me". He is saying "I don't want them to know who I am because I think I have a right to privacy and anonymity" and "I had a valid fair use right to do it anyway."

And, he is not using this as a defense against the suit. He is using it as part of a motion to quash the subpoena.

Re:Title is nonsense (2, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056032)

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 (1)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056258)

#include "IANAL.h"

Yes: it's called "pleading in the alternative". In effect, the defense is saying "My client didn't do what the complainant accuses him of. But even if you decide he did, the complainant still has no case because the act is not unlawful."

rj

Re:Title is nonsense (1)

Annymouse Cowherd (1037080) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055818)

Most ISPs have a clause saying that you are responsible for all traffic using your internet connection.

Re:Title is nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055832)

Most ISPs have a clause saying that you are responsible for all traffic using your internet connection.

Thankfully, everything in a contract is legally binding.

Re:Title is nonsense (0, Troll)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055836)

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:Title is nonsense (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055988)

I'ld love to see them try and enforce that,
-- We can prove you were hacked
-- We can prove that hacker then did something illegal
-- We are suing you for your unwitting participation in this string of crimes.

"THEY" don't have to prove it. (2, Insightful)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056062)

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

Yes, well ... (4, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055548)

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 ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055566)

Don't worry, the schools will take care of that using the webcams in the laptops.

Re:Yes, well ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055754)

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.

No. They would just continue to postpone prosecution as long as they keep winning in that court.

Re:Yes, well ... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055786)

Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.

The case would never become a case.

These forced IP identifications are going to turn into great big fishing expeditions, where ISPs turn over lists of users data and the RIAA can play whack-a-mole.

Fuck the RIAA, and fuck any federal court asshole judge that would force ISPs to become snitches..

Re:Yes, well ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056186)

Fuck the RIAA, and fuck any federal court asshole judge that would force ISPs to become snitches..

Incrementalism. There are a lot of people in government that admire the way the East Germans went about matters, and would like the U.S. to work along similar lines. They can't do it all at once, of course, but they can lay the groundwork.

How can he claim a right to privacy? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055576)

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? (1, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055688)

OK, so you're fine with the federal government listening in to any conversation you have with your friends? That's a "community". But hey, you know, it could be justified, because your friends and you could be a terrorist sleeper cell. And when you go to the game, the park or the bar, perhaps you're conspiring to bring down the government. Or maybe conspiring to lend him a DVD and break intellectual property laws. So it's a good idea to automatically eavesdrop on any conversation. What's more in the digital age, with computer voice recognition and word recognition, all of your conversations can be automatically screened for key words.

And BY THE WAY, any other thought crime you might commit (like speaking against the government, admitting minor laws you broke, threatening someone, etc) WILL be enforced because after all it's a hell of a lot easier to go after YOU and make an example of YOU, than say some illegal immigrant running a drug smuggling operation who is loaded with guns and has nothing to lose.

We're not there YET, but suddenly the above scenario doesn't seem so far away, and so far fetched. America of today is NOT the America I grew up in. In fact with aggressive police, ridiculous punishments for ridiculous offenses (drawing on school desks, making "finger guns", posting "mooninites" on highway overpasses), and covert surveillance everywhere, it looks a lot like what we used to say Soviet Russia was like. Make sure to get your permit from the municipality before you paint your house comrade. We must ensure you use an approved color.

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy? (0, Flamebait)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055986)

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.

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy? (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056134)

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.

      I have lived a lifetime. You have not. I remember what America WAS. You do not. You think the slippery slope isn't real? Ok, wait.

Re:How can he claim a right to privacy? (4, Interesting)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056154)

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.

A Constitutional what now? (2, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055578)

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? (3, Insightful)

portnux (630256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055634)

At least terrorists, pornographers and mass-murderers are still protected.

Re:A Constitutional what now? (1)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055748)

Implying pornographers are a bad thing.

Re:A Constitutional what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055792)

or maybe that terrorists and mass murderers are good things.

Re:A Constitutional what now? (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056056)

Implying pornographers are a bad thing.

Many, of course, are not bad 'things', or even bad people, (unless you are morally /religiously against pornography, in which case pornographers are de facto 'bad'. Some, however, are very nasty 'things' indeed, preying on the young, weak, poor, drug-addicted...

Re:A Constitutional what now? (1)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056112)

Sure, I knew that, but those are far from being the norm. So, why generalize? Anyway, your explanation seems to be targeted at pimps, not filmmakers.

Re:A Constitutional what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056492)

>>> Some, however, are very nasty 'things' indeed, preying on the young, weak, poor, drug-addicted...

An accurate general description of corporate America. What was it you wanted to say about pornography?

Re:A Constitutional what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056400)

He'd say CHILD p, but when its the only kind you've watched for years you tend to conflate the term.

Re:A Constitutional what now? (4, Informative)

gclef (96311) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055648)

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? (5, Insightful)

Derosian (943622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055684)

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? (3, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055844)

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? (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055946)

In other words, it does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, and thus is not an absolute right and so this guy's argument about having a "First Amendment right to privacy" is bullshit.

Re:A Constitutional what now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056322)

Don't be so sure about what I know.

Re:A Constitutional what now? (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055732)

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? (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055968)

Unfortunately, this is not about political discourse. This is about copyright law and civil litigation of same. The right to anonymous speech is not absolute, even in "democratic discourse" and political speech, ex: Someone states he is going to kill the President. In this case, a person is accused of violating the copyrights held by a different "person". That is not "democratic discourse" anymore than threatening or expressing a will to kill a government official.

Re:A Constitutional what now? (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055784)

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?

How about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So where in the Constitution does it give the government the power to invade my privacy?

Re:A Constitutional what now? (2, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055888)

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? (2, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056306)

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 [usconstitution.net] .

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? (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056420)

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.

Re:A Constitutional what now? (1)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056176)

It is not in there. Never has been, but in the USA we have something called precedent, which often matters more than the word of the law. Several major supreme court cases have Came down on the side of freedom and privacy.

The real question is, what kind of asshat doesn't want that? If you have no right to privacy, then you must be perfectly 100% in line with every single law, even while you have sex and shower and sleep.naked inside your own home? nope. Masturbating? Nope. sex in any position besides missionary or oral sex? Death by hanging.

You don't think anyone should have the right to freedom and privacy? Fine,you sacrifice yours first and others will follow.

Promised Land? BS (2, Insightful)

Voulnet (1630793) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055596)

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 (1)

flajann (658201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055614)

http://fractopoly.com/ [fractopoly.com]

Re:Promised Land? BS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055796)

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:Promised Land? BS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055838)

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:Promised Land? BS (4, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055866)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056508)

Don't you understand? It must be bleak! It cannot be the same as before! I am 20 years old, the new generation, more insightful and smarter than my peers! The world is changing I tell you, and I'm living in the midst of it. It's oh so secretly thrilling... ooh, hold on, my panties are all askew.

Carry on, ya geezer.

Re:Promised Land? BS (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056020)

Is the American public capable of a revolution against the system that favors those with deep pockets?

Only when things are at their worst will we be ready to put down our corporate overlords and bribe taking congress. Until then...all hail to the corporate overlords.

Re:Promised Land? BS (3, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056080)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056202)

We shall not let technology devalue our market niche. Sure, it's allowed in other sectors, because that's how an open market works, but not in ours. Maintaining our profit margin is more important than your individual freedoms and rights. If automobiles start to infringe on our territory, we will lobby for control of their industry. If architecture begins to infringe on our market, we'll lobby for control of their niche. We will stop at nothing to artificially maintain value in the digitized content sub-niche of home entertainment. We will never, NEVER, leave that market, and neither will you.

Re:Promised Land? BS (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056320)

No, we aren't losing our rights. We are f-ing handing them to the man on a silver platter.

"losing" implies we put up a fight. :(

Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055600)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

cat first_amendment.txt |grep privacy

Ooooh 'trespassing intellectual property' (4, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055626)

now thats a first.

i wonder how low u.s. judicial system will sink under the weight of the money of riaa.

Re:Ooooh 'trespassing intellectual property' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055674)

so you notice.

calm down and assume party escort position.

Re:Ooooh 'trespassing intellectual property' (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056398)

But the attorneys will make money.. More people will be ruined financially, and more will be in jail ( don't laugh, this will start happening soon, so the *AAs can transfer the cost of pursuing to the government. )

Don't do the crime if you can't the TIME !! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055660)

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

Re:Don't do the crime if you can't the TIME !! (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055700)

I wonder who our anon poet is, have being seeing a lot of this stuff on here of late. Sure, it's offtopic, but it's sort of cool actually. To me, it's sort of like bumping into a stranger at a coffee shop, who says something really amazing, or insightful, but then walks away quickly and you never get to speak to them again.

As funny as it is, I would love to know why this person picked this, of all places to post to over something like deviantart or one of the countless others, whether they come back to check if anyone has replied to their posts.

Lastly, cheer up, your stuff has been rather sad of late.

Re:Don't do the crime if you can't the TIME !! (1)

Roger Wilcox (776904) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055862)

Alan Parsons Project! Not sure what it has to do with this thread though...

How to erode Copyright+patent law (4, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055670)

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 (3, Insightful)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055746)

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 (1, Interesting)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055794)

You do that and let me know how that works out for you, m'kay?

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law (3, Insightful)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055940)

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 (2, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055950)

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.

Re:How to erode Copyright+patent law (1)

Sabriel (134364) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056208)

I think there's a great difference between worthless and priceless. And as for opaque and secretive medieval guilds, times have changed. Technology is no longer an arcane art known only to a few; the sciences both theoretical and practical are taught in universities and colleges the world over, the internet allows any piece of reverse-engineered information to be widely spread across the planet in moments, and even merely knowing something could be done would allow the creative output of millions of scientists, unfettered by patent monopolies and fears of lawsuits and bankruptcy, to focus upon it.

Remember, some of the most massive technological advancements came about during wartime, when patents were suddenly far less important than gaining a technological edge. Imagine if we could apply that creative drive in peacetime, for peaceful goals.

Automated Fines/Taxes (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056332)

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.

why do people get so riled up protecting thieves? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055678)

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
 

Re:why do people get so riled up protecting thieve (3, Insightful)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055752)

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 .

Re:why do people get so riled up protecting thieve (2, Insightful)

hanabal (717731) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055928)

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 (2, Interesting)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055936)

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.

Re:why do people get so riled up protecting thieve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056516)

Taking something without paying is theft.

Right to anonymity? I don't think so. (2, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055690)

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:Right to anonymity? I don't think so. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055760)

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.

Really?
Please list the relevant section of the First Amendment that gives the right to anonymity while breaking the law.
Right or wrong, "sharing" music that the copyright owners do not want being "shared" is in violation of the law.

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so. (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055894)

Depends hows you read
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
and the "against unreasonable searches and seizures" part of your digital papers, and effects.
The idea that your home could be raided on some virtual "seen your IP "trespasser"" fishing type court order seems strange.
The suggestion that some non US gov entity can enter your home based on seeing a string of numbers at a given time is scary.

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055902)

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.

Really?
Please list the relevant section of the First Amendment that gives the right to anonymity while breaking the law.
Right or wrong, "sharing" music that the copyright owners do not want being "shared" is in violation of the law.

Except for that, you know, fair use [copyright.gov] thing.

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32055904)

He's agreeing, you idiot

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056074)

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

(source [hrweb.org] )

The right to privacy/anonymity applies to everyone, guilty or not. The right is not absolute, but unless there is solid evidence I wouldn't say a private (!) company should be allowed to pass this right. This is what the police is/are for; they can (through court orders or search warrants for example) have the right to investigate you.

Re:Right to anonymity? I don't think so. (1)

siride (974284) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056408)

That document has no binding legal force in the US and so is irrelevant for this discussion.

Once again, people (1, Informative)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055716)

One does not have an absolute constitutional right to privacy or anonymity, especially when interacting with in public space, such as on the internet. You might not want your identity made available, but all it takes is a subpoena to get it. Seeing as the RIAA is suing those they believe are violating their copyrights, they have a valid reason to request the subpoena, namely to properly name the defendant. "I don't want them to sue me because I don't think I did anything wrong" is not a valid reason to quash a subpoena because no one wants to be sued and the suit in question is about whether one did something wrong. The fact that it involves the Internet doesn't matter either. If plaintiff had your University parking pass number, do you think the court would refuse to allow a subpoena to get your name from the University?

Giving away or selling unauthorized copies of a work, be they physical or electronic, is not fair use. It really is as simple as that. Just because it is effectively free to make and give those copies away doesn't make doing it fair use. Just because you made no money making and giving the copies away don't make it fair use. Just because you are a poor college student using a university network, doesn't make it fair use. Whether or not making the copies is fair use is for the court to decide, not the respondent.

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.

Re:Once again, people (2, Insightful)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056296)

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.

Bleh (1, Offtopic)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055768)

This is just another example of the poison of Corporatism spreading its infection throughout American politics. I wish Obama's calls for campaign finance reform were much more progressive. Perhaps he doesn't want to step on anyone's toes in an election year where a slow-moving Congress obstructed by Republicans simply can't act on finance reform until next year.

I just hope that if Democrats maintain a majority in both legislatures after November that Obama will go full-speed ahead on reform (abolition of corporate personhood, super-strict limits on corporate donations, perhaps even government financing of campaigns).

you do not have the right to break the law (2, Insightful)

Bauguss (62171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32055848)

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 (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056038)

Indeed the right to privacy should not be abused as a shield from the law, as it often is, by government and corporations. The law does however evolve with the times, new realities, public pressure, cultural changes, momentary needs, etc. It's not set in stone forever. "The law", all aspects of it, includes custom, tradition, social tolerance, a bunch of stuff that's not even written anywhere - like it or not. Copyright and IP law is at a crossroads moment, is widely ignored, ridicularized, called obsolete, bypassed, complained about, in all circles, even in copyright owners homes and offices. That's a sign that it's modification could happen, but that chance exists under pressure only -- they won't voluntarily give up their rights. Eroding the actual profits they gain will help, their ability to enforce the law, public perception of the morality and right of the law, every change in culture, interpretation, opinion, practice, will eventually be possible to become law.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056052)

Yes_you_do.

I can and do whatever the fuck I want. At about 12 I learned that I am the master of my fate and no one has any inherent right to tell me what to do, laws be damned.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law (1)

celle (906675) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056088)

"While true, we do not have the right to hand out our music or games to others for free."

Oh yes you do. The number given away is irrelevant. When you buy something it is yours, period, to do with what you like and that includes giving it away. It's called the right of ownership and it's a very basic right in this country. Never mind the number of wars fought over that right. Stop beating around the bush, this is what it's really about. Remember that original copyright law states giving a limited monopoly to a creator in exchange for getting the creation into society immediately to benefit society not the creator. The monopoly is not longer limited and the benefit to society is muted and the lost resources and research eaten up in court fights is definitely a draw on society.

Re:you do not have the right to break the law (2, Insightful)

siride (974284) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056424)

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.

The court is corrupted by corporate influence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056330)

The supreme court is supremely corrupt. When are the people going to realize just how high the evil goes?

Re:The court is corrupted by corporate influence (0, Offtopic)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056426)

I think the vast majority of people realized how corrupt the Supreme Court was after the 2000 Bush vs. Gore decision that essentially gave the presidential election to Bush. The subsequent fallout of that disastrously political decision will be felt for decades due to Bush's abuse of his position.

First Amendment right? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32056338)

I would think this is more of a 4th amendment thing.

1 Theif down several to go (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32056402)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...