×

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!

A Court's Weak Argument For Blocking IP Subpoenas

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the justice-or-justish dept.

The Courts 220

Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes to point out some unfortunate holes in a judge's recent ruling that was largely welcomed 'round these parts: "A federal judge has ruled that a Canadian adult film producer cannot subpoena the identities of ISP users that were alleged to be sharing its copyrighted movies. Regardless of whether one supports the conclusion, the judge's reasoning was pretty weak. But the real hurdle is convincing people that a non-lawyer is entitled to call out a federal judge on their logic in the first place." Read on for the rest of Bennett's thoughts.

A federal judge has ruled that a Canadian adult film producer cannot subpoena the identities en masse of over 1,000 "John Doe" defendants whom the producers accused of sharing their films and violating their copyright. Quebec-based VPR Internationale had obtained the IP addresses of 1,017 users that they suspected of sharing their copyrighted films over the Internet, and wanted a federal court to sign off on subpoenaing the subscribers' identities from their ISPs.

Judge Harold Baker's ruling denying VPR's request has been lauded as a victory of judicial common sense against abuses of the legal system. Even though this will probably put me in the minority among self-described civil libertarians, I beg to disagree. First, because I don't think that subpoenaing a defendant's identity from a service provider constitutes an abuse of the legal system in and of itself. But more importantly, whether or not one agrees with the judge's decision, I think it contained plenty of logical errors, including a paragraph near the end which literally averaged about one error per sentence.

But back up for a second. Some of you are already thinking: What is a math major doing making legal criticisms of a ruling of a federal judge? So here's what I mean in each instance where I say that the judge made a "logical error": I mean that if you were to take the point made by the judge, and take the opposite point made by someone who disagreed, and you asked a group of experts (certainly if you asked a group of mathematicians, but probably even if you asked a group of lawyers) to read the two points and vote on which one was right, and you didn't tell them which position was the one taken by the judge — that most of the respondents would vote that the judge's position was incorrect.

Conversely, I'm always interested in hearing why people think I might be mistaken, if they say exactly what I've said that they think is incorrect, and why. In my most recent article, I offered a cash prize split between readers who submitted arguments that I was wrong (or, really, that my idea needed more work), and I enjoyed the responses so much that I ended up paying out more than the originally stated prize total. But if someone tries pulling rank and saying that I should defer to them on a legal question because they are a lawyer, law student, Supreme Court justice etc., here's the question I want them to answer: If we rounded up 10 lawyers to act as expert "voters," and showed each of them my argument and the heckler's counter-argument, and didn't tell the voters which argument was made by the math major and which one was made by the law school graduate, for whose argument would the majority vote? If the heckler won't explicitly make that claim, then there's no reason to take them seriously — because, obviously, if only 5 out of any given 10 lawyers would agree with their point, then why should we listen to the 5 who agree, instead of the other 5 who don't? (This does not apply if someone is making a bona fide argument — then the argument can be analyzed on its own terms. But if it's a good argument, the person shouldn't have to invoke their credentials to make it.)

Back to Judge Baker. His argument in support of his ruling begins on the second page, by rejecting the plaintiff's analogy between ISPs and car rental agencies:

VPR compares the Doe defendants' IP addresses to "records of who rented which car at a busy car rental agency, in that IP addresses are like cars "leased by subscribers. If a plaintiff was injured by a rental car, the plaintiff can discover the information on who leased the car from the agency by specifying the license plate of the offending vehicle and the date and time when the injury occurred. Without access to the agency's records, all the plaintiff has is the identity of the rental agency, but not who was driving the rental car." The comparison is not apt. The rental agency owns the car and is a potential defendant, so the adversarial process would yield the driver's information.

Huh? If you're injured by a rental car, how is the rental agency a "potential defendant"? Well, technically, anybody in the world is a "potential defendant" — you can put anyone's name on a lawsuit until a court shoots you down — but since that would make the phrase meaningless, presumably Judge Baker meant that the rental agency would be a legitimate potential defendant, one whom the accident victim would be justified in suing. So again: Huh? Why is a rental car agency liable for an accident caused by one of its renters? Obviously if the rental car agency was negligent in the maintenance of one of its vehicles and that negligence led to the accident, they might be liable — but not simply if their customer did something reckless over which they had no control (which would be analogous to an ISP subscriber committing a copyright infringement that the ISP didn't know about).

So, to translate that into vote-off terms as discussed above. What I mean is that if you took these two points:

  • "The analogy between an ISP and a rental car agency is inappropriate, because a plaintiff could sue the rental car agency in order to subpoena the identity of the renter that hit them, but a copyright owner could not do the same to an ISP." [Judge Baker's argument.]
  • "The statement that the analogy is inappropriate, makes no sense. In either situation, the plaintiff wants to sue a customer of a third-party company, when the third-party company itself is probably not liable. So in either case, the plaintiff can sue a 'John Doe' defendant, and subpoena the company for the customer's identity. One could argue that this should be permitted in both cases, or prohibited in both cases, but no reason has been given as to why they should be treated differently." [My argument.]

and asked lawyers or mathematicians to vote on which was more correct, and you didn't tell them which argument was made by a judge and which argument was made by a math major, that the second point would get more votes. (I certainly think that if you fibbed and told your respondents that the first argument was made by a defendant, and the second argument was made by a judge in rejecting the defendant's line of reasoning, that most people would vote, "The judge is right." That would be cheating — playing on people's tendency to believe that a judge's reasoning is usually superior — but I could point out that if respondents are really evaluating the two arguments objectively, then it shouldn't matter!)

I'm not going to convert every such disagreement highlighted here into the point-counterpoint format; I think in each case it should be non-controversial how the conversion would go.

To proceed: in claiming that subpoenaing a rental car agency for the identity of their customer is not analogous to subpoenaing an ISP for the identity of their subscriber, Judge Baker adds: "And such information is not necessarily confidential; accident reports and police records may also identify the driver." True, but what does this have to do with anything? The question is: given a certain probability that a company's customer is guilty, is it appropriate to let a plaintiff subpoena the customer's identity from that company? If some customers in similar situations have had their identities made public by other circumstances, the judge's ruling gives no reason why that should be relevant at all, in a situation where the customer's identity is not public.

Judge Baker then raises the point that the customers to whom the IP addresses were assigned might not be the actual infringers:

Moreover, VPR ignores the fact that IP subscribers are not necessarily copyright infringers. Carolyn Thompson writes in an MSNBC article of a raid by federal agents on a home that was linked to downloaded child pornography. The identity and location of the subscriber were provided by the ISP. The desktop computer, iPhones, and iPads of the homeowner and his wife were seized in the raid. Federal agents returned the equipment after determining that no one at the home had downloaded the illegal material. Agents eventually traced the downloads to a neighbor who had used multiple IP subscribers' Wi-Fi connections.

Well, true — the assignee of the IP address might not be the actual copyright infringer. But, more generally, being named as a defendant in a lawsuit does not mean that you're at fault anyway — that's what the trial is for. For a court to take a plaintiff's case against a given defendant seriously, they just have to believe that there is a reasonable probability of the plaintiff winning. If the VPR has a list of IP addresses of users sharing out their copyrighted material, it may be true that not literally all of those infringers are living in the household that the IP address has been assigned to — but what percentage of them probably are? 90% or more? In any other scenario, wouldn't that have been considered quite a "reasonable" likelihood that the plaintiff had a legitimate case against a defendant, and that the case should go forward so that more facts can be brought to light, with the expectation that those facts would move you to a higher degree of certainty about whether the defendant was in fact at fault?

On the same note, Judge Baker goes on to say:

"The list of IP addresses attached to VPR's complaint suggests, in at least some instances, a similar disconnect between IP subscriber and copyright infringer. The ISPs include a number of universities, such as Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, and the University of Minnesota, as well as corporations and utility companies."

But there is no reason to think that in the case of these entities, there would be any more "disconnect" between the actual infringer and the user on the network that the IP address had been assigned to. In fact, in the case of, say, a corporate network, it's more likely that an IP address would have been assigned by the IT department to a specific, trackable user, and not shared out on an unsecured Wi-Fi network where the IP could have been hi-jacked by a car parked on the street, a scenario that's probably more likely for a home network. I'm moderately confident that if you compared commercial home ISPs to corporations and looked at the percentage of times that the "user of record" for an IP address according to the logs was the same as the actual person using it, that percentage would be higher for a corporation than for an ISP serving home users. In any case, Judge Baker certainly gives no reason to expect that it would be lower.

Now here we get to the home stretch, the last paragraph on page 2, where I'm claiming almost one logical error or non sequitur per sentence:

  • "As VPR points out, ex parte motions for expedited discovery have been granted in similar cases in other districts; among the thousands of Does in those cases, relatively few motions to quash have been filed."

    I'm not even sure what Judge Baker is saying here, but given the context, it seems to be: The innocent John Does' only defense against abuse of the discovery process is to quash the subpoenas (basically, file a motion saying "I'm not guilty, so the plaintiff can't have my identity"), but that's been relatively rare, so we can't rely on that as a defense against abuses of the system. Of course, there could be a simpler explanation as to why it's rare: Perhaps a lot of the John Doe defendants thus named are, in fact, guilty! I certainly don't want to take the position that anyone who doesn't deny their guilt is guilty — but we shouldn't assume that they're innocent, either. Come on — it's not that hard for a copyright holder to join a p2p network or find a Torrent tracker, and get a list of the IP address of a few users who are sharing or downloading their content illegally. Is it that hard to believe that most of the users on that list are probably doing what VPR said they were doing?
  • "In at least one case, counsel has sought leave to amend the complaint to add more Doe defendants. See Lightspeed Media Corp. v. Does 1 - 100, Case No. 1:10-cv-05604, d/e 16 (N.D. Ill.) (seeking leave to add Does 101 - 1000 as defendants)."

    Uh, OK. Plaintiff started with a list of 100 defendants, and then expanded it to 1,000. What does this have to do with the legitimacy, generally, of suing John Doe defendants and subpoenaing their identities?
  • "In Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1 - 1000, counsel sought leave to dismiss more than 100 Doe defendants, stating that some of the Does had 'reached a mutually satisfactory resolution of their differences' with the plaintiff."

    Well, yeah, that's what you're supposed to do — try and settle out of court instead of bringing every single case before a judge. How does the fact that some plaintiffs settled make it less legitimate to sue John Doe defendants in the first place?
  • "Could expedited discovery be used to wrest quick settlements, even from people who have done nothing wrong? The embarrassment of public exposure might be too great, the legal system too daunting and expensive, for some to ask whether VPR has competent evidence to prove its case."

    Now these are actually all fair points. The logical error is that they apply to any lawsuit — Judge Baker makes no argument why these problems would be more pronounced in a lawsuit against 1,000 John Does.

    In fact, some of these problems would probably be less severe in the case of a lawsuit against 1,000 John Doe defendants than in the case of a lawsuit against a single, named defendant. If you're one of 1,000 people who is accused of illegally downloading an adult movie, then even if the plaintiff learns your identity, it's unlikely that your name is going to appear in any articles about the case — far less likely than if you're the only defendant in the lawsuit. And if, out of over 1,000 defendants, there are at least several dozen who decide to fight the case, they'd be more likely to be able to split the costs of hiring a good lawyer than if only one defendant was named who had to pay all the costs on their own. Both embarrassment and legal fees are less of a burden when you can share them with hundreds of other people.

Now, I'd be happy to live under a legal regime that reached either conclusion — it's not an egregious miscarriage of justice if plaintiffs are able to subpoena the identities of ISP subscribers who show a high probability of being guilty, but it's not an egregious miscarriage of justice if they aren't, either. I think we need more healthy skepticism about the reasoning that judges use to reach those conclusions.

The practice of "judge-bashing" is unfortunately associated in most people's minds with extremists, usually on the right wing, but my reason for being skeptical is simple and non-partisan. Suppose that you were take, say, an economic argument published by a prominent economist, and asked the public to identify what they thought were "mistakes" and submit counter-points to those specific points in the argument. Then, suppose for each such disagreement, you asked an independent panel of economists to vote on who was right without saying which was the point made by the economist and which was the counter-point made by the layperson. (I'm not talking about errors that the author would voluntarily correct once they were pointed out; rather, points where they "dig their heels in" and refuse to back down.) I think it would be quite rare to find a disagreement where the experts were split 50/50 on whether the economist or the layperson was right, and extremely rare to find cases where 80% of the experts voted with the layperson. By contrast, polling my lawyer buddies about this or that part of a judge's reasoning, the 50/50 splits are extremely common, and there were quite a few cases where the vast majority agreed that a judge's reasoning was wrong — but always with the same shrug that there's not much you can do about it.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

220 comments

I stopped reading... (5, Informative)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#36047752)

...after the first argument made, about the car rental agency. Anyone who has studied law knows that, at least in the US, the rental agency WOULD be a legitimate defendant. What if they leased the car to someone without a licence? They've essentially armed someone with a dangerous weapon. There are plenty of reasons like this that would make the agency potentially liable, and the law pretty much has it worked out. While nothing's perfect, this math major either needs to expand his expertise or to kindly be quiet.

You are smarter than me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36047850)

I stopped reading at "but my reason for being skeptical is simple and non-partisan." Yeah right. After all the bashing he does, everyone else is an extremist and he is just plain right. Admittedly, the rest of the post is just as much crap to match that attitude.

Re:You are smarter than me (3, Informative)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048104)

One thing that is common to extremists in every arena is that they never believe they are extremists.

Re:I stopped reading... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36047924)

Yes. Furthermore, rental agencies are known to under-maintain cars to save money (duh!). If the accident can be shown to have been caused by, or even simply aggravated by the lack of maintenance (eg: Steering is sloppy causing the driver to find it difficult to regain control of the automobile, resulting in an accident), the driver could be absolutely absolved of all guilt and the rental company held liable.

And that's a LOGICAL next step, too. No clue why this guy's rant is on slashdot. What a doofus.

Re:I stopped reading... (4, Informative)

tater86 (628389) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048118)

I think you nailed it. The problem with his analysis of the analogy is that he doesn't seem to take into consideration the most important aspect of a legal decision, laws. ISP's aren't liable for the content of traffic from subscribers. I have no idea what laws would apply for car rental agencies, but I'm guessing it's not the DMCA.

Re:I stopped reading... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048124)

I stopped at the exact same spot. This is one of the many reasons why you can't say "Well I know logic, so that must supersede someone who knows the law". He also made no attempt to actually break his argument down into actual logic statements, he just basically said "Here's the way I assume things to be, and here's the way I think they should be, and I think I'm really smart so I must be right". Upon a little further reflection, I'm pretty sure that statement is an accurate summary of every Bennet Haselton post ever.

Re:I stopped reading... (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048602)

zzzzzzzzzzz

Why was this article even promoted to the first page? I stopped at "I'm a math major," because unless he's a genius, he's like most college kids (and professors
0 - not a clue about how the world actually works (lies, backstabbing, and networking). Plus: It's not even his field of study. I'm sure he's great at calculus, but that has no relation to how the Law works (which is often the opposite of logical).

Bennet's comment is no more worthy of reading than any other Comment from any other person.

Re:I stopped reading... (4, Funny)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048132)

Mr. Haselton can compress the least ideas into the most words of anyone I've ever seen.

Re:I stopped reading... (3, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048464)

He's also full of shit, not a lawyer, and attempting to imply legal analysis.

This is just as bad as listening to legal analysis from Florian Mueller.

This is a giant step in shooting down subpoena lottery, and they want it to be labeled as an error, a once in a lifetime thing, surely it won't happen again. Sounds nice, but reality is, that subpoenas are fairly regularly shot down, and this is hard evidence on the why part. That is a very strong argument.

Re:I stopped reading... (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048814)

Ugh. Posts like yours make my head hurt because they are so illogical. Basically the judge has ruled its legal to hinder legal investigations with probable cause and has gone as far providing unique legal protections to a special category of criminals. Its illogical and completely unsupported by law and even logic. The judge and all of his supporters are idiots.

Like so many issues which relate to piracy, people get all emotional and completely lose sight of the fact that the emotion is almost always completely wrong. The simple fact is, an IP address may not always identify a specific person (frequently it actually does), regardless, it absolutely is probable cause to facilitate additional investigation. The problem is, people confuse that with how its instrumented in the streets. Meaning, idiot police then use the IP as a correlation to justify arrests rather than to further an investigation.

So in a nut shell, this judge (and all of his supporters), police, and torte lawyers are all wrong. Period. Contrary to the stupidity of the judge, there is no valid reason to stop subpoenas. Which means, the judge is 100% wrong. The flip side of that is, an IP address does not always translate to a specific person and is therefore not a reliable form of identification to justify arrest or legal prosecution. It is, however, probable cause for additional investigation.

In a nut shell, the judge and pro-pirates are completely wrong.

Re:I stopped reading... (3, Interesting)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048196)

One huge difference is that a rental car can only be driven by one person at a time, and the rental company usually has you sign paperwork agreeing that you won't let anyone else drive it, or specifically stating who besides yourself will be driving the vehicle.

An IP address can be used by scores of people simultaneously and to my knowledge ISPs don't require you to keep any particularly careful track of who uses your IP address (even if you secure the network, it'll certainly be used by any family members, and quite probably infrequently by friends/guests).

Re:I stopped reading... (1)

Lord Juan (1280214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048662)

That is exactly what I thought when I started reading. One person rents a car, one person can drive it. In this case a car equals a person. Even if the car was full of passengers, there still would be only one driver. It is a terrible analogy for an IP address.

Re:I stopped reading... (2)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048204)

They've essentially armed someone with a dangerous weapon. There are plenty of reasons like this that would make the agency potentially liable

Seriously, from "you let THAT guy drive one of your cars?" to "you ignored WHAT warning light for HOW LONG?", there's a ton of reasons why a car rental company could be liable if their car injures someone.

So I stopped reading there, because I can't imagine the rest of that tl;dr would have been less ignorant.

Re:I stopped reading... (0)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048384)

While I too did not read the entire thing, if you'd finished reading that paragraph you'd have seen that the guy did address such issues.

Obviously if the rental car agency was negligent in the maintenance of one of its vehicles and that negligence led to the accident, they might be liable — but not simply if their customer did something reckless over which they had no control (which would be analogous to an ISP subscriber committing a copyright infringement that the ISP didn't know about).

Re:I stopped reading... (2)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048608)

There's good faith duties to perform before letting someone drive off with your car, such as making sure they have a valid driver's license, the injured party could argue that the renter was obviously a danger to themselves and to others and shouldn't have been allowed to drive, etc.

Rental companies are clearly potential defendants when their equipment causes damage. They're not always at fault, but they have the potential to be.

Re:I stopped reading... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048352)

Also, his picking apart of the judge's paragraph, sentence by sentence, is just plain wrong. It's alright to pick apart a paragraph to show false statements. However, examining each sentence out of context and saying the sentence has no legitimate argument is wrong. The paragraph needs to be examined as a whole to understand the arguments.

Re:I stopped reading... (5, Insightful)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048484)

I didn't. The flaws continue:

If the VPR has a list of IP addresses of users sharing out their copyrighted material, it may be true that not literally all of those infringers are living in the household that the IP address has been assigned to — but what percentage of them probably are? 90% or more?

It seems to me the first problem is that you're just making up numbers. Where does 90% come from? Keep in mind that the question you're asking isn't the probability that some undifferentiated traffic comes from the account holder for an internet account, it's the probability that someone engaged in criminal or infringing activity would choose to piggy back on someone else's internet connection instead of using their own.

It also seems like you're asking the question the wrong way. Suppose the chances are actually as high as you speculate: 90%. They're trying to subpoena some 1000 names. With that 10% error rate you can expect some 100 false results. In this single lawsuit. That seems like a high probability -- even a near certainty -- that the court would be wrongly turning over a substantial number of names.

"Could expedited discovery be used to wrest quick settlements, even from people who have done nothing wrong? The embarrassment of public exposure might be too great, the legal system too daunting and expensive, for some to ask whether VPR has competent evidence to prove its case."
Now these are actually all fair points. The logical error is that they apply to any lawsuit — Judge Baker makes no argument why these problems would be more pronounced in a lawsuit against 1,000 John Does.

The Judge might not explicitly spell out why they're more pronounced, but those reasons exist: Both the prospective penalty and the cost of litigation here is vastly disproportionate to the actual harm to plaintiffs, and in consequence to the settlement terms. If everyone is offered e.g. a $5000 settlement and the alternative for the innocent person is to prove their innocence at the cost of several times that amount in legal fees compounded with the risk that they will not succeed and have to pay several hundred times that much in statutory damages. Most normal lawsuits don't have that characteristic because the settlement terms are not likely to be so incredibly divergent from the expected outcome if the case was tried in court. Moreover, most normal lawsuits are over business matters or the like, whereas pornography is something that people have a special aversion to having their name associated with in the public record -- especially if they're innocent.

And if, out of over 1,000 defendants, there are at least several dozen who decide to fight the case, they'd be more likely to be able to split the costs of hiring a good lawyer than if only one defendant was named who had to pay all the costs on their own. Both embarrassment and legal fees are less of a burden when you can share them with hundreds of other people.

That only works if some nontrivial number of defendants refuse to settle. It seems to me past cases have shown that this does not happen. Do you have any evidence to show that it would?

Re:I stopped reading... (2)

BBrown (70466) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048768)

You made the right move. I am a lawyer and I can tell you his inaccuracies -- both legally and, frankly, logically -- continue well beyond the first argument.

Ah, Bennett ... (5, Insightful)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 2 years ago | (#36047754)

I keep reading your articles and I get more frustrated every time I do. Someone is wrong on the internet! It just grinds on me for no good reason. I really shouldn't give you the time of day because you have shown time and again that you have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to law.

First of all, please don't redefine "logic" just because you feel like it. A logical error in an argument is one where the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. That's it. Because that's what logic is. It has nothing to do with voting or whatever the hell bullshit system you can come up with. Something is either a logical error or not as a matter of logic.

Second, YOU ADMITTED THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT about the car rental liability case. You explicitly said that there are circumstances where the rental agency may be a legitimate potential defendant, yet you just cast that aside and ignored it for the rest of your argument. THIS is a logical error: You have certain premises, and you ignore them to the effect that your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premises.

Third, I hope that you phrased the public/not public question wrong. If you phrased it right, then the judge is arguing that there is a disanalogy precisely because information was made publicly available. That's why it is relevant when the information is not made public - it's not made public vs it was made public. That is the very thing being argued, I don't know how you can't see the relevance. That's like saying a label like "WARNING: This chair can only support up to 200 lbs of weight." is not relevant for those who weigh over 200 lbs because they weren't explicitly mentioned. Disingenuous at best.

I could go on, but I don't have as much time as you do. If you want to be taken seriously by people, you should get some legal training before you comment. Even if you want to argue that legal training is not required to make comments on legal cases, you STILL need to get legal training to understand WHY it's not required in order to make a coherent argument for your case. That's just a long way of saying that you're full of shit.

Re:Ah, Bennett ... (1)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 2 years ago | (#36047796)

Thanks for setting things straight. I started reading this long-winded diatribe and gave up when I couldn't make any sense of it. Not to mention it is too long. I have a day job.

Re:Ah, Bennett ... (1)

clintp (5169) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048316)

You're not the only one. He probably has a point buried in there somewhere with with all of the sanctimonious bullshit and posturing. When it takes him 400 words (thank you wc) to explain why he's qualified to make the criticism in the first place, something is terribly wrong.

TL;DR. Skimmed only.

Re:Ah, Bennett ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048716)

...When it takes him 400 words (thank you wc) to explain why he's qualified to make the criticism in the first place, something is terribly wrong...

Which is funny if you think about it. Because at the end of his paragraph where he is explaining how he's qualified, he says that people shouldn't need to invoke their credentials if they have a solid argument.

I did read all of it, and most of the arguments don't really hold

Re:Ah, Bennett ... (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36047840)

Second, YOU ADMITTED THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT about the car rental liability case. You explicitly said that there are circumstances where the rental agency may be a legitimate potential defendant, yet you just cast that aside and ignored it for the rest of your argument. THIS is a logical error: You have certain premises, and you ignore them to the effect that your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premises.

I haven't even finished reading the article yet, but that was the first thing that struck me. Saying "Obviously if the rental car agency was negligent in the maintenance of one of its vehicles and that negligence led to the accident, they might be liable" implies quite clearly that they are a "legitimate potential defendant". The word "potential" is key: nobody's saying that they are guaranteed to be a defendant in the case, only that the may be in certain circumstances - the very same circumstances outlined in the post attempting to refute that line of argument.

I'll read the rest when I have a chance, but a start like that doesn't bode well for the validity of the remainder.

Re:Ah, Bennett ... (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 2 years ago | (#36047910)

I haven't even finished reading the article yet, but that was the first thing that struck me. Saying "Obviously if the rental car agency was negligent in the maintenance of one of its vehicles and that negligence led to the accident, they might be liable" implies quite clearly that they are a "legitimate potential defendant". The word "potential" is key: nobody's saying that they are guaranteed to be a defendant in the case, only that the may be in certain circumstances - the very same circumstances outlined in the post attempting to refute that line of argument.

Likewise, it could be construed or implied that the IP addresses were not in fact addresses of customers, but of the ISP itself, used for internal operations. Then the ISP is a legitimate potential defendant. Naturally, in most cases it would be easy to state the remote likelihood of a download or hosting actually being done by the ISP, but it is not obvious in all cases. Likewise, in most accident cases where a subpoena is considered, the actual likelihood of the rental agency being at fault is minimal. If they would actually be liable, it will probably be due to reasons of renting the car to someone obviously unsuitable rather than maintenance negligence.

The post is a terrible read, but the author seems to have some valid points nonetheless.

Re:Ah, Bennett ... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048540)

none of it is valid. It is an extrapolation on misleading done by a fucking math major making legal analysis with generally no idea what he's even talking about. It doesn't even have the "I AM NOT A LAWYER" disclaimer, or explaining who the hell this guy is. There are big issues there.

There is actual established caselaw and plenty of actual things that don't even remotely support his position. The disclaimer should be on the first line saying : "THIS IS AN EDITORIAL AND HAS NO FACTUAL BASIS" because that would be far more honest and accurate.

Re:Ah, Bennett ... (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048826)

Well, I suspect the "right" course of action is probably to start with suing the ISP.

What? Don't they have "common carrier" status or some other kind of immunity against prosecution for just carrying data? No, they don't. They have a limited amount of liability for hosted materials if, and only if, they are responsive in removing infringing and offending materials from their hosting service. That doesn't say anything about their providing data transfer services to customers.

So far nobody has bothered the ISPs because they have been pretty responsive about turning over customer information for an IP address at a given date and time. Maybe it is time this changed. OK, let's assume that there is no correlation implied between an IP address and a customer's identity - just the account holder, not necessarily anyone guilty of anything. How do you go about tracking down the person responsible for the lengthy post about killing the President given an IP address as the starting point? Simple - the burden can be easily pushed onto the ISP to make whatever association they want and failing to be able to make that association, they are responsible themselves. There is no "common carrier" status for data transfer and there is no real immunity.

My guess is that this problem gets solved in about 10 minutes the first time you actually hold an ISP responsible for activities on a bank of IP addresses assigned to them. Just like the rental car company in the judge's decision, the ISP can indeed be named as a defendant. They get out of it by coughing up information about who they consider to be the really responsible party and being in a position to legally defend their assignment.

The other alternative here is actually pretty simple. Anything you do on the Internet has no consequences whatsoever because we are assuming from the beginning that everyone is untraceable. I don't think that is going to fly in today's legal community.

Re:Ah, Bennett ... (2)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#36047940)

Second, YOU ADMITTED THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT about the car rental liability case. You explicitly said that there are circumstances where the rental agency may be a legitimate potential defendant, yet you just cast that aside and ignored it for the rest of your argument. THIS is a logical error: You have certain premises, and you ignore them to the effect that your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premises.

I haven't even finished reading the article yet, but that was the first thing that struck me.

Same here, but I won't be going on to read the rest of the textwall. The page or so I did read was littered with errors or sloppy, illogical argumentation. I don't think I've ever seen so few valid points per word in a Slashdot post.

Wall of text (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36047808)

I'm not fucking reading all of that. Someone sum it up in one or two sentences, please.

Re:Wall of text (0)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048114)

At least it's not ROT-13 encoded like the wall of text at the bottom of the page.

(quoted following, since it periodically changes.)

N PBQR BS RGUVPNY ORUNIVBE SBE CNGVRAGF: 1. QB ABG RKCRPG LBHE QBPGBE GB FUNER LBHE QVFPBZSBEG. Vaibyirzrag jvgu gur cngvrag'f fhssrevat zvtug pnhfr uvz gb ybfr inyhnoyr fpvragvsvp bowrpgvivgl. 2. OR PURRESHY NG NYY GVZRF. Lbhe qbpgbe yrnqf n ohfl naq gelvat yvsr naq erdhverf nyy gur tragyrarff naq ernffhenapr ur pna trg. 3. GEL GB FHSSRE SEBZ GUR QVFRNFR SBE JUVPU LBH NER ORVAT GERNGRQ. Erzrzore gung lbhe qbpgbe unf n cebsrffvbany erchgngvba gb hcubyq. % N PBQR BS RGUVPNY ORUNIVBE SBE CNGVRAGF: 4. QB ABG PBZCYNVA VS GUR GERNGZRAG SNVYF GB OEVAT ERYVRS. Lbh zhfg oryvrir gung lbhe qbpgbe unf npuvrirq n qrrc vafvtug vagb gur gehr angher bs lbhe vyyarff, juvpu genafpraqf nal zrer creznarag qvfnovyvgl lbh znl unir rkcrevraprq. 5. ARIRE NFX LBHE QBPGBE GB RKCYNVA JUNG UR VF QBVAT BE JUL UR VF QBVAT VG. Vg vf cerfhzcghbhf gb nffhzr gung fhpu cebsbhaq znggref pbhyq or rkcynvarq va grezf gung lbh jbhyq haqrefgnaq. 6. FHOZVG GB ABIRY RKCREVZNAGNY GERNGZRAG ERNQVYL. Gubhtu gur fhetrel znl abg orarsvg lbh qverpgyl, gur erfhygvat erfrnepu cncre jvyy fheryl or bs jvqrfcernq vagrerfg. % N PBQR BS RGUVPNY ORUNIVBE SBE CNGVRAGF: 7. CNL LBHE ZRQVPNY OVYYF CEBZCGYL NAQ JVYYVATYL. Lbh fubhyq pbafvqre vg n cevivyrtr gb pbagevohgr, ubjrire zbqrfgyl, gb gur jryy-orvat bs culfvpvnaf naq bgure uhznavgnevnaf. 8. QB ABG FHSSRE SEBZ NVYZRAGF GUNG LBH PNAABG NSSBEQ. Vg vf furre neebtnapr gb pbagenpg vyyarffrf gung ner orlbaq lbhe zrnaf. 9. ARIRE ERIRNY NAL BS GUR FUBEGPBZVATF GUNG UNIR PBZR GB YVTUG VA GUR PBHEFR BS GERNGZRAG OL LBHE QBPGBE. Gur cngvrag-qbpgbe eryngvbafuvc vf n cevivyrtrq bar, naq lbh unir n fnperq qhgl gb cebgrpg uvz sebz rkcbfher. 10. ARIRE QVR JUVYR VA LBHE QBPGBE'F CERFRAPR BE HAQRE UVF QVERPG PNER. Guvf jvyy bayl pnhfr uvz arrqyrff vapbairavrapr naq rzoneenffzrag. % N qvfgenhtug cngvrag cubarq ure qbpgbe'f bssvpr. "Jnf vg gehr," gur jbzna vadhverq, "gung gur zrqvpngvba gur qbpgbe unq cerfpevorq jnf sbe gur erfg bs ure yvsr?" Fur jnf gbyq gung vg jnf. Gurer jnf whfg n zbzrag bs fvyrapr orsber gur jbzna cebprrqrq oeniryl ba. "Jryy, V'z jbaqrevat, gura, ubj frevbhf zl pbaqvgvba vf. Guvf cerfpevcgvba vf znexrq `AB ERSVYYF'". % N qbpgbe pnyyf uvf cngvrag gb tvir uvz gur erfhygf bs uvf grfgf. "V unir fbzr onq arjf," fnlf gur qbpgbe, "naq fbzr jbefr arjf." Gur onq arjf vf gung lbh bayl unir fvk jrrxf gb yvir." "Bu, ab," fnlf gur cngvrag. "Jung pbhyq cbffvoyl or jbefr guna gung?" "Jryy," gur qbpgbe ercyvrf, "V'ir orra gelvat gb ernpu lbh fvapr ynfg Zbaqnl." % N jbzna culfvpvna unf znqr gur fgngrzrag gung fzbxvat vf arvgure culfvpnyyl qrsrpgvir abe zbenyyl qrtenqvat, naq gung avpbgvar, rira jura vaqhytrq gb va rkprff, vf yrff unezshy guna rkprffvir crggvat." -- Cheqhr Rkcbarag, Wna 16, 1925 % N jbzna jrag vagb n ubfcvgny bar qnl gb tvir ovegu. Nsgrejneqf, gur qbpgbe pnzr gb ure naq fnvq, "V unir fbzr... bqq arjf sbe lbh." "Vf zl onol nyy evtug?" gur jbzna nakvbhfyl nfxrq. "Lrf, ur vf," gur qbpgbe ercyvrq, "ohg jr qba'g xabj ubj. Lbhe fba (jr nffhzr) jnf obea jvgu ab obql. Ur bayl unf n urnq." Jryy, gur qbpgbe jnf pbeerpg. Gur Urnq jnf nyvir naq jryy, gubhtu ab bar xarj ubj. Gur Urnq ghearq bhg gb or snveyl abezny, vtabevat uvf ynpx bs n obql, naq yvirq sbe fbzr gvzr nf glcvpny n yvsr nf pbhyq or rkcrpgrq haqre gur pvephzfgnaprf. Bar qnl, nobhg gjragl lrnef nsgre gur sngrshy ovegu, gur jbzna tbg n cubar pnyy sebz nabgure qbpgbe. Gur qbpgbe fnvq, "V unir erpragyl cresrpgrq na bcrengvba. Lbhe fba pna yvir n abezny yvsr abj: jr pna tensg n obql bagb uvf urnq!" Gur jbzna, cenpgvpnyyl jrrcvat jvgu wbl, gunaxrq gur qbpgbe naq uhat hc. Fur ena hc gur fgnvef fnlvat, "Wbuaal, Wbuaal, V unir n *jbaqreshy* fhecevfr sbe lbh!" "Bu ab," pevrq Gur Urnq, "abg nabgure UNG!" % Nsgre uvf yrtf unq orra oebxra va na nppvqrag, Ze. Zvyyre fhrq sbe qnzntrf, pynzvat gung ur jnf pevccyrq naq jbhyq unir gb fcraq gur erfg bs uvf yvsr va n jurrypunve. Nygubhtu gur vafhenapr-pbzcnal qbpgbe grfgvsvrq gung uvf obarf unq urnyrq cebcreyl naq gung ur jnf shyyl pncnoyr bs jnyxvat, gur whqtr qrpvqrq sbe gur cynvagvss naq njneqrq uvz $500,000. Jura ur jnf jurryrq vagb gur vafhenapr bssvpr gb pbyyrpg uvf purpx, Zvyyre jnf pbasebagrq ol frireny rkrphgvirf. "Lbh'er abg trggvat njnl jvgu guvf, Zvyyre," bar fnvq. "Jr'er tbvat gb jngpu lbh qnl naq avtug. Vs lbh gnxr n fvatyr fgrc, lbh'yy abg bayl ercnl gur qnzntrf ohg fgnaq gevny sbe crewhel. Urer'f gur zbarl. Jung qb lbh vagraq gb qb jvgu vg?" "Zl jvsr naq V ner tbvat gb geniry," Zvyyre ercyvrq. "Jr'yy tb gb Fgbpxubyz, Oreyva, Ebzr, Nguraf naq, svanyyl, gb n cynpr pnyyrq Ybheqrf -- jurer, tragyrzra, lbh'yy frr lbhefryirf bar uryy bs n zvenpyr." % Nsgre gjryir lrnef bs gurencl zl cflpuvngevfg fnvq fbzrguvat gung oebhtug grnef gb zl rlrf. Ur fnvq, "Ab unoyb vatyrf." -- Ebaavr Funxrf % Nalbar jub tbrf gb n cflpuvngevfg bhtug gb unir uvf urnq rknzvarq. -- Fnzhry Tbyqjla % Ndhnivg vf nyfb pbafvqrerq hfrshy sbe zrqvpvany checbfrf, na rffragvny vaterqvrag va jung V jnf bapr gbyq vf gur Abejrtvna pher sbe gur pbzzba pbyq. Lbh trg n obggyr, n cbfgre orq, naq gur oevtugrfg pbyberq fgbpxvat pnc lbh pna svaq. Lbh chg gur pnc ba gur cbfg ng gur sbbg bs gur orq, gura trg vagb orq naq qevax ndhnivg hagvy lbh pna'g frr gur pnc. V'ir arire gevrq guvf, ohg vg fbhaqf nf gubhtu vg fubhyq jbex. -- Crgre Aryfba % Nf n trareny ehyr bs guhzo, arire gehfg nalobql jub'f orra va gurencl sbe zber guna 15 creprag bs gurve yvsr fcna. Gur jbeqf "V nz fbeel" naq "V nz jebat" jvyy unir gbgnyyl qvfnccrnerq sebz gurve ibpnohynel. Gurl jvyy fgno lbh, fubbg lbh, oernx guvatf va lbhe ncnegzrag, fnl ubeevoyr guvatf gb lbhe sevraqf naq snzvyl, naq gura whfgvsl guvf noubeerag orunivbe ol fnlvat: "Fher, V chg lbhe qbt va gur zvpebjnir. Ohg V srry *orggre* sbe qbvat vg." -- Oehpr Srvefgrva, "Avpr Thlf Fyrrc Nybar" % Ng gur ubfcvgny, n qbpgbe vf genvavat na vagrea ba ubj gb naabhapr onq arjf gb gur cngvragf. Gur qbpgbe gryyf gur vagrea "Guvf zna va 305 vf tbvat gb qvr va fvk zbaguf. Tb va naq gryy uvz." Gur vagrea obyqyl jnyxf vagb gur ebbz, bire gb gur zna'f orqvfqr naq gryyf uvz "Frrzf yvxr lbh'er tbaan qvr!" Gur zna unf n urneg nggnpx naq vf ehfurq vagb fhetrel ba gur fcbg. Gur qbpgbe tenof gur vagrea naq fpernzf ng uvz, "Jung!?!? ner lbh fbzr xvaq bs zbeba? Lbh'ir tbg gb gnxr vg rnfl, jbex lbhe jnl hc gb gur fhowrpg. Abj guvf zna va 213 unf nobhg n jrrx gb yvir. Tb va naq gryy uvz, ohg, tragyl, lbh urne zr, tragyl!" Gur vagrea tbrf fbsgyl vagb gur ebbz, uhzzvat gb uvzfrys, purrevyl bcraf gur qencrf gb yrg gur fha va, jnyxf bire gb gur zna'f orqfvqr, syhssf uvf cvyybj naq jvfurf uvz n "Tbbq zbeavat!" "Jbaqreshy qnl, ab? Fnl... thrff jub'f tbvat gb qvr fbba!" % Or n orggre cflpuvngevfg naq gur jbeyq jvyy orng n cflpubcngu gb lbhe qbbe. % Orggre gb hfr zrqvpvarf ng gur bhgfrg guna ng gur ynfg zbzrag. % Pregnva byq zra cersre gb evfr ng qnja, gnxvat n pbyq ongu naq n ybat jnyx jvgu na rzcgl fgbznpu naq bgurejvfr zbegvslvat gur syrfu. Gurl gura cbvag jvgu cevqr gb gurfr cenpgvprf nf gur pnhfr bs gurve fgheql urnygu naq evcr lrnef; gur gehgu orvat gung gurl ner urnegl naq byq, abg orpnhfr bs gurve unovgf, ohg va fcvgr bs gurz. Gur ernfba jr svaq bayl ebohfg crefbaf qbvat guvf guvat vf gung vg unf xvyyrq nyy gur bguref jub unir gevrq vg. -- Nzoebfr Ovrepr, "Gur Qrivy'f Qvpgvbanel" % Pher gur qvfrnfr naq xvyy gur cngvrag. -- Senapvf Onpba % Qrngu unf orra cebira gb or 99% sngny va ynobengbel engf. % Qragny urnygu vf arkg gb zragny urnygu. % Rire abgvpr gung gur jbeq "gurencvfg" oernxf qbja vagb "gur encvfg"? Fvzcyr pbvapvqrapr? Znlor... % Sbe zl fba, Eboreg, guvf vf cebivat gb or gur uvtu-cbvag bs uvf ragver yvsr gb qngr. Ur unf unq uvf cnwnznf ba sbe gjb, znlor guerr qnlf abj. Ur unf gur frafr bs wblshy vaqrcraqrapr n 5-lrne-byq puvyq trgf jura ur fhqqrayl ernyvmrf gung ur pbhyq or bcrengvat na nprglyrar gbepu va gur pbng pybfrg naq arvgure cnerag [orpnhfr bs gur syh] jbhyq unir gur fgeratgu gb bowrpg. Ur unf orra sbentvat sbe uvf bja sbbq, juvpu zrnaf uvf qvrg pbafvfgf ragveryl bs "sbbq" fhofgnaprf juvpu ner nqiregvfrq bayl ba Fngheqnl-zbeavat pnegbba fubjf; fhofgnaprf gung ner gur pbybe bs whxrobk yvtugf naq gung, sbe yrtny ernfbaf, unir gurve anzrf fcryyrq jebat, nf va Arj Perrzl Pubx-'a'-Purrm Yhzcf b' Sebbg ("cneg bs guvf pbzcyrgr oernxsnfg"). -- Qnir Oneel, "Zbyrphyne Ubzvpvqr" % Sbeghar'f Rkrepvfvat Gehguf: 1: Evpuneq Fvzzbaf trgf cnvq gb rkrepvfr yvxr n yhangvp. Lbh qba'g. 2. Nrebovp rkrepvfrf fgvzhyngr naq fcrrq hc gur urneg. Fb qb urneg nggnpxf. 3. Rkrepvfvat nebhaq fznyy puvyqera pna fpne gurz rzbgvbanyyl sbe yvsr. 4. Fjrngvat yvxr n cvt naq tnfcvat sbe oerngu vf abg erserfuvat. 5. Ab znggre jung nalbar gryyf lbh, vfbzrgevp rkrepvfrf pnaabg or qbar dhvrgyl ng lbhe qrfx ng jbex. Crbcyr jvyy fhfcrpg znavp graqrapvrf nf lbh gjvggre nebhaq va lbhe punve. 6. Arkg gb ohelvat obarf, gur guvat n qbt rawblf zbfgf vf gevccvat wbttref. 7. Ybpxvat sbhe crbcyr va n gval, przrag-jnyyrq ebbz fb gurl pna eha nebhaq sbe na ubhe fznfuvat n yvggyr ehoore onyy -- naq rnpu bgure -- jvgu n uneq enpxrg fubhyq vzzrqvngryl or erpbtavmrq sbe jung vg vf: n sbez bs vafnavgl. 8. Svsgl chfu-hcf, sbyybjrq ol guvegl fvg-hcf, sbyybjrq ol gra puva-hcf, sbyybjrq ol bar guebj-hc. 9. Nal npgvivgl gung pna'g or qbar juvyr fzbxvat fubhyq or nibvqrq. % [Sebz na naabhaprzrag bs n pbaterff bs gur Vagreangvbany Bagbcflpubybtl Nffbpvngvba, va Ebzr]: Gur Bagbcflpubybtvpny fpubby, ninvyvat vgfrys bs arj erfrnepu pevgrevn naq bs n arj gryrzngvp rcvfgrzbybtl, znvagnvaf gung fbpvny zbqrf qb abg fcevat sebz qvnyrpgvpf bs greevgbel be bs pynff, be bs pbafhzre tbbqf, be bs zrnaf bs cbjre, ohg engure sebz qlanzvp yngrapvrf pncvyynevmrq va zvyyvbaf bs vaqvivqhnyf va flfgrz shapgvbaf juvpu, bapr gurl unir ernpurq gur rirag znghengvba, ohefg sbegu va pngnfgebcuvp curabzrabybtl ratntvat n fhvgnoyr fgrerbglcr cebgntbavfg be qhgl znevbarggr (trareny, cerfvqrag, cbyvgvpny cnegl, rgp.) gb pbafhzzngr gur npg bs fbpvny fpuvmbcueravn va znff trabpvqr. % Tbq vf qrnq naq V qba'g srry nyy gbb jryy rvgure.... -- Enycu Zbbara % "Tbbq urnygu" vf zreryl gur fybjrfg engr ng juvpu bar pna qvr. % Unccvarff vf tbbq urnygu naq n onq zrzbel. -- Vatevq Oretzna % Urnygu vf zreryl gur fybjrfg cbffvoyr engr ng juvpu bar pna qvr. % Urnygu ahgf ner tbvat gb srry fghcvq fbzrqnl, ylvat va ubfcvgnyf qlvat bs abguvat. -- Erqq Sbkk % Uvf vqrnf bs svefg-nvq fgbccrq fubeg bs fdhvegvat fbqn jngre. -- C.T. Jbqrubhfr % Uhzna pneqvnp pngurgrevmngvba jnf vagebqhprq ol Jreare Sbeffzna va 1929. Vtabevat uvf qrcnegzrag puvrs, naq glvat uvf nffvfgnag gb na bcrengvat gnoyr gb cerirag ure vagresrerapr, ur cynprq n hergreny pngurgre vagb n irva va uvf nez, nqinaprq vg gb gur evtug ngevhz [bs uvf urneg], naq jnyxrq hcfgnvef gb gur k-enl qrcnegzrag jurer ur gbbx gur pbasvezngbel k-enl svyz. Va 1956, Qe. Sbeffzna jnf njneqrq gur Abory Cevmr. % V trg zl rkrepvfr npgvat nf cnyyornere gb zl sevraqf jub rkrepvfr. -- Punhaprl Qrcrj % V tbg gur ovyy sbe zl fhetrel. Abj V xabj jung gubfr qbpgbef jrer jrnevat znfxf sbe. -- Wnzrf Obera % "V xrrc frrvat fcbgf va sebag bs zl rlrf." "Qvq lbh rire frr n qbpgbe?" "Ab, whfg fcbgf." % Vs n crefba (n) vf cbbeyl, (o) erprvirf gerngzrag vagraqrq gb znxr uvz orggre, naq (p) trgf orggre, gura ab cbjre bs ernfbavat xabja gb zrqvpny fpvrapr pna pbaivapr uvz gung vg znl abg unir orra gur gerngzrag gung erfgberq uvf urnygu. -- Fve Crgre Zrqnjne, "Gur Neg bs gur Fbyhoyr" % Vs V xvff lbh, gung vf na cflpubybtvpny vagrenpgvba. Ba gur bgure unaq, vs V uvg lbh bire gur urnq jvgu n oevpx, gung vf nyfb n cflpubybtvpny vagrenpgvba. Gur qvssrerapr vf gung bar vf sevraqyl naq gur bgure vf abg fb sevraqyl. Gur pehpvny cbvag vf vs lbh pna gryy juvpu vf juvpu. -- Qbycu Funec, "V'z B.X., Lbh'er Abg Fb Ubg" % Vs lbh ybbx yvxr lbhe qevire'f yvprafr cubgb -- frr n qbpgbe. Vs lbh ybbx yvxr lbhe cnffcbeg cubgb -- vg'f gbb yngr sbe n qbpgbe. % Vg vf irel ihytne gb gnyx yvxr n qragvfg jura bar vfa'g n qragvfg. Vg cebqhprf n snyfr vzcerffvba. -- Bfpne Jvyqr. % Vg'f ab ybatre n dhrfgvba bs fgnlvat urnygul. Vg'f n dhrfgvba bs svaqvat n fvpxarff lbh yvxr. -- Wnpxvr Znfba % Vg'f abg ernyvgl be ubj lbh creprvir guvatf gung'f vzcbegnag -- vg'f jung lbh'er gnxvat sbe vg... % Whfg orpnhfr lbhe qbpgbe unf n anzr sbe lbhe pbaqvgvba qbrfa'g zrna ur xabjf jung vg vf. % Ynrgevyr vf gur cvgf. % Zl qbpgbengr'f va Yvgrengher, ohg vg frrzf yvxr n cerggl tbbq chyfr gb zr. % Arhebgvpf ohvyq pnfgyrf va gur fxl, Cflpubgvpf yvir va gurz, Naq cflpuvngevfgf pbyyrpg gur erag. % Arire tb gb n qbpgbe jubfr bssvpr cynagf unir qvrq. -- Rezn Obzorpx % Arj Ratynaq Yvsr, bs pbhefr. Jul qb lbh nfx? % cntr 46 ...n ercbeg pvgvat n fghql ol Qe. Gubznf P. Punyzref, bs gur Zbhag Fvanv Zrqvpny Pragre va Arj Lbex, juvpu pbzcnerq gjb tebhcf gung jrer orvat hfrq gb grfg gur gurbel gung nfpbeovp npvq vf n pbyq ceriragngvir. "Gur tebhc ba cynprob jub gubhtug gurl jrer ba nfpbeovp npvq," fnlf Qe. Punyzref, "unq srjre pbyqf guna gur tebhc ba nfpbeovp npvq jub gubhtug gurl jrer ba cynprob." cntr 56 Gur cynprob vf cebbs gung gurer vf ab erny frcnengvba orgjrra zvaq naq obql. Vyyarff vf nyjnlf na vagrenpgvba orgjrra obgu. Vg pna ortva va gur zvaq naq nssrpg gur obql, be vg pna ortva va gur obql naq nssrpg gur zvaq, obgu bs juvpu ner freirq ol gur fnzr oybbqfgernz. Nggrzcgf gb gerng zbfg zragny qvfrnfrf nf gubhtu gurl jrer pbzcyrgryl serr bs culfvpny pnhfrf naq nggrzcgf gb gerng zbfg obqvyl qvfrnfrf nf gubhtu gur zvaq jrer va ab jnl vaibyirq zhfg or pbafvqrerq nepunvp va gur yvtug bs arj rivqrapr nobhg gur jnl gur uhzna obql shapgvbaf. -- Abezna Pbhfvaf, "Nangbzl bs na Vyyarff nf Creprvirq ol gur Cngvrag" % Cnenylfvf guebhtu nanylfvf. % Cebcre gerngzrag jvyy pher n pbyq va frira qnlf, ohg yrsg gb vgfrys, n pbyq jvyy unat ba sbe n jrrx. -- Qneeryy Uhss % Cflpuvngel ranoyrf hf gb pbeerpg bhe snhygf ol pbasrffvat bhe cneragf' fubegpbzvatf. -- Ynherapr W. Crgre, "Crgre'f Cevapvcyrf" % Cflpubnanylfvf vf gung zragny vyyarff sbe juvpu vg ertneqf vgfrys n gurencl. -- Xney Xenhf % Cflpuvngel vf gur pner bs gur vq ol gur bqq. % Fubj zr n fnar zna naq V jvyy pher uvz sbe lbh. -- P.T. What % Cflpubybtl. Zvaq bire znggre. Zvaq haqre znggre? Vg qbrfa'g znggre. Arire zvaq. % Chfuvat 30 vf rkrepvfr rabhtu. % Chfuvat 40 vf rkrepvfr rabhtu. % Dhvg jbeelvat nobhg lbhe urnygu. Vg'yy tb njnl. -- Eboreg Beora % Fvtzhaq'f jvsr jber Serhqvna fyvcf. % Fbzr crbcyr arrq n tbbq vzntvanel pher sbe gurve cnvashy vzntvanel nvyzrag. % Fbzrgvzrf gur orfg zrqvpvar vf gb fgbc gnxvat fbzrguvat. % Fgenj? Ab, gbb fghcvq n snq. V chg fbbg ba jnegf. % Fgerff unf orra cvacbvagrq nf n znwbe pnhfr bs vyyarff. Gb nibvq bireybnq naq oheabhg, xrrc fgerff bhg bs lbhe yvsr. Tvir vg gb bguref vafgrnq. Yrnea gur "Tnfyvtug" gerngzrag, gur "Ner lbh gnyxvat gb zr?" grpuavdhr, naq gur "Qb lbh srry bxnl? Lbh ybbx cnyr." nccebnpu. Fgneg jvgu artbgvngvba naq vzcyvpngvba. Nqinapr gb znavchyngvba naq uhzvyvngvba. Nobir nyy, erynk naq unir n avpr qnl. % Gur 80'f -- jura lbh pna'g gryy unvefglyrf sebz purzbgurencl. % "... gur Znlb Pyvavp, anzrq nsgre vgf sbhaqre, Qe. Grq Pyvavp ..." -- Qnir Oneel % "Gur zbynef, V'z fher, jvyy or nyy evtug, gur zbynef pna gnxr pner bs gurzfryirf," gur byq zna fnvq, ab ybatre gb zr. "Ohg jung jvyy orpbzr bs gur ovphfcvqf?" -- Gur Byq Zna naq uvf Oevqtr % Gur Arj Ratynaq Wbheany bs Zrqvpvar ercbegf gung 9 bhg bs 10 qbpgbef nterr gung 1 bhg bs 10 qbpgbef vf na vqvbg. % Gur erny ernfba cflpubybtl vf uneq vf gung cflpubybtvfgf ner gelvat gb qb gur vzcbffvoyr. % Gur ernfba gurl'er pnyyrq jvfqbz grrgu vf gung gur rkcrevrapr znxrf lbh jvfr. % Gur frperg bs urnygul uvgpuuvxvat vf gb rng whax sbbq. % Gur gebhoyr jvgu urneg qvfrnfr vf gung gur svefg flzcgbz vf bsgra uneq gb qrny jvgu: qrngu. -- Zvpunry Curycf % Gur Irg Jub Fhecevfrq N Pbj Va gur pbhefr bs uvf qhgvrf va Nhthfg 1977, n Qhgpu irgrevanel fhetrba jnf erdhverq gb gerng na nvyvat pbj. Gb vairfgvtngr vgf vagreany tnfrf ur vafregrq n ghor vagb gung raq bs gur navzny abg pncnoyr bs snpvny rkcerffvba naq fgehpx n zngpu. Gur wrg bs synzr frg sver svefg gb fbzr onyrf bs unl naq gura gb gur jubyr snez pnhfvat qnzntr rfgvzngr ng Y45,000. Gur irg jnf yngre svarq Y140 sbe fgnegvat n sver va n znaare fhecevfvat gb gur zntvfgengrf. Gur pbj rfpncrq jvgu fubpx. -- Fgrcura Cvyr, "Gur Obbx bs Urebvp Snvyherf" % Jr unir gur syh. V qba'g xabj vs guvf cnegvphyne fgenva unf na bssvpvny anzr, ohg vs vg qbrf, vg zhfg or fbzrguvat yvxr "Znegvna Qrngu Syh". Lbh znl unir unq vg lbhefrys. Gur znva flzcgbz vf gung lbh jvfu lbh unq nabgure frggvat ba lbhe ryrpgevp oynaxrg, hc cnfg "UVTU", gung fnvq "RYRPGEBPHGVBA". Nabgure flzcgbz vf gung lbh prnfr oehfuvat lbhe grrgu, orpnhfr (n) lbhe grrgu uheg, naq (o) lbh ynpx gur fgeratgu. Zvqjnl guebhtu gur oehfuvat cebprff, lbh'q unir gb yvr qbja va sebag bs gur fvax gb erfg sbe n pbhcyr bs ubhef, naq evihyrgf bs gbbgucnfgr sbnz jbhyq qevooyr fvqrjnlf bhg bs lbhe zbhgu, riraghnyyl uneqravat vagb pehfgl yvggyr gbbgucnfgr fgnyntzvgrf gung jbhyq obaq lbhe urnq creznaragyl gb gur onguebbz sybbe, juvpu vf ubj gur cbyvpr jbhyq svaq lbh. Lbh xabj gur xvaq bs syh V'z gnyxvat nobhg. -- Qnir Oneel, "Zbyrphyne Ubzvpvqr" % "Jrypbzr onpx sbe lbh 13gu pbafrphgvir jrrx, Riryla. Riryla, jvyy lbh tb vagb gur nhgb-fhttrfgvba obbgu naq gnxr lbhe erthyne cynpr ba gur cflpub-cebzcgre pbhpu?" "Gunax lbh, Erq." "Abj, Riryla, ynfg jrrx lbh jrag hc gb $40,000 ol cebcreyl pvgvat lbhe evinyel jvgu lbhe fvoyvat nf n pbzchyfvir fnqb-znfbpuvfgvp orunivbe cnggrea juvpu qrirybcrq bhg bs na rneyl cbfg-angny srrqvat ceboyrz." "Lrf, Erq." "Ohg -- yngre, jura nfxrq nobhg cer-nqbyrfprag brqvcny cunagnfl ercerffvbaf, lbh engvbanyvmrq gjvpr naq zragny oybpxrq guerr gvzrf. Abj, ng $300 cre engvbanyvmngvba naq $500 cre zragny oybpx lbh ybfg $2,100 bss lbhe $40,000 yrnivat lbh jvgu n gbgny bs $37,900. Abj, nal pbzovangvba bs gjb zber zragny oybpxf naq rvgure bar engvbanyvmngvba be guerr qrsrafvir cebwrpgvbaf jvyy chg lbh bhg bs gur tnzr. Ner lbh jvyyvat gb tb nurnq?" "Lrf, Erq." "V zvtug fnl urer gung nyy bs Riryla'f dhrfgvbaf naq nafjref unir orra purpxrq sbe npphenpl jvgu ure nanylfg. Abj, Riryla, sbe $80,000 rkcynva gur snvyher bs lbhe guerr zneevntrf." "Jryy, V--" "Jr'yy trg onpx gb Riryla va bar zvahgr. Svefg n jbeq nobhg bhe cebqhpg." -- Whyrf Srvssre % Jura n ybg bs erzrqvrf ner fhttrfgrq sbe n qvfrnfr, gung zrnaf vg pna'g or pherq. -- Nagba Purxubi, "Gur Pureel Bepuneq" % Lbhe qvtrfgvir flfgrz vf lbhe obql'f Sha Ubhfr, jurerol sbbq tbrf ba n ybat, qnex, fpnel evqr, gnxvat nyy xvaqf bs harkcrpgrq gjvfgf naq gheaf, orvat nggnpxrq ol ivpvbhf frpergvbaf nybat gur jnl, naq abg xabjvat hagvy gur ynfg zvahgr jurgure vg jvyy or ghearq vagb n hfrshy obql cneg be rwrpgrq vagb gur Qnex Ubyr ol Zvfgre Fcuvapgre. Jr Nzrevpnaf yvir va n angvba jurer gur zrqvpny-pner flfgrz vf frpbaq gb abar va gur jbeyq, hayrff lbh pbhag znlor 25 be 30 yvggyr fphmmonyy pbhagevrf yvxr Fpbgynaq gung jr pbhyq incbevmr va frpbaqf vs jr sryg yvxr vg. -- Qnir Oneel, "Fgnl Svg & Urnygul Hagvy Lbh'er Qrnq" %

Re:Wall of text (2)

The13thSin (1092867) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048672)

Well, doesn't make much sense after you decode it either:

A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS: 1. DO NOT EXPECT YOUR DOCTOR TO SHARE YOUR DISCOMFORT. Involvement with the patient's suffering might cause him to lose valuable scientific objectivity. 2. BE CHEERFUL AT ALL TIMES. Your doctor leads a busy and trying life and requires all the gentleness and reassurance he can get. 3. TRY TO SUFFER FROM THE DISEASE FOR WHICH YOU ARE BEING TREATED. Remember that your doctor has a professional reputation to uphold. % A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS: 4. DO NOT COMPLAIN IF THE TREATMENT FAILS TO BRING RELIEF. You must believe that your doctor has achieved a deep insight into the true nature of your illness, which transcends any mere permanent disability you may have experienced. 5. NEVER ASK YOUR DOCTOR TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE IS DOING OR WHY HE IS DOING IT. It is presumptuous to assume that such profound matters could be explained in terms that you would understand. 6. SUBMIT TO NOVEL EXPERIMANTAL TREATMENT READILY. Though the surgery may not benefit you directly, the resulting research paper will surely be of widespread interest. % A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS: 7. PAY YOUR MEDICAL BILLS PROMPTLY AND WILLINGLY. You should consider it a privilege to contribute, however modestly, to the well-being of physicians and other humanitarians. 8. DO NOT SUFFER FROM AILMENTS THAT YOU CANNOT AFFORD. It is sheer arrogance to contract illnesses that are beyond your means. 9. NEVER REVEAL ANY OF THE SHORTCOMINGS THAT HAVE COME TO LIGHT IN THE COURSE OF TREATMENT BY YOUR DOCTOR. The patient-doctor relationship is a privileged one, and you have a sacred duty to protect him from exposure. 10. NEVER DIE WHILE IN YOUR DOCTOR'S PRESENCE OR UNDER HIS DIRECT CARE. This will only cause him needless inconvenience and embarrassment. % A distraught patient phoned her doctor's office. "Was it true," the woman inquired, "that the medication the doctor had prescribed was for the rest of her life?" She was told that it was. There was just a moment of silence before the woman proceeded bravely on. "Well, I'm wondering, then, how serious my condition is. This prescription is marked `NO REFILLS'". % A doctor calls his patient to give him the results of his tests. "I have some bad news," says the doctor, "and some worse news." The bad news is that you only have six weeks to live." "Oh, no," says the patient. "What could possibly be worse than that?" "Well," the doctor replies, "I've been trying to reach you since last Monday." % A woman physician has made the statement that smoking is neither physically defective nor morally degrading, and that nicotine, even when indulged to in excess, is less harmful than excessive petting." -- Purdue Exponent, Jan 16, 1925 % A woman went into a hospital one day to give birth. Afterwards, the doctor came to her and said, "I have some... odd news for you." "Is my baby all right?" the woman anxiously asked. "Yes, he is," the doctor replied, "but we don't know how. Your son (we assume) was born with no body. He only has a head." Well, the doctor was correct. The Head was alive and well, though no one knew how. The Head turned out to be fairly normal, ignoring his lack of a body, and lived for some time as typical a life as could be expected under the circumstances. One day, about twenty years after the fateful birth, the woman got a phone call from another doctor. The doctor said, "I have recently perfected an operation. Your son can live a normal life now: we can graft a body onto his head!" The woman, practically weeping with joy, thanked the doctor and hung up. She ran up the stairs saying, "Johnny, Johnny, I have a *wonderful* surprise for you!" "Oh no," cried The Head, "not another HAT!" % After his legs had been broken in an accident, Mr. Miller sued for damages, claming that he was crippled and would have to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Although the insurance-company doctor testified that his bones had healed properly and that he was fully capable of walking, the judge decided for the plaintiff and awarded him $500,000. When he was wheeled into the insurance office to collect his check, Miller was confronted by several executives. "You're not getting away with this, Miller," one said. "We're going to watch you day and night. If you take a single step, you'll not only repay the damages but stand trial for perjury. Here's the money. What do you intend to do with it?" "My wife and I are going to travel," Miller replied. "We'll go to Stockholm, Berlin, Rome, Athens and, finally, to a place called Lourdes -- where, gentlemen, you'll see yourselves one hell of a miracle." % After twelve years of therapy my psychiatrist said something that brought tears to my eyes. He said, "No hablo ingles." -- Ronnie Shakes % Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined. -- Samuel Goldwyn % Aquavit is also considered useful for medicinal purposes, an essential ingredient in what I was once told is the Norwegian cure for the common cold. You get a bottle, a poster bed, and the brightest colored stocking cap you can find. You put the cap on the post at the foot of the bed, then get into bed and drink aquavit until you can't see the cap. I've never tried this, but it sounds as though it should work. -- Peter Nelson % As a general rule of thumb, never trust anybody who's been in therapy for more than 15 percent of their life span. The words "I am sorry" and "I am wrong" will have totally disappeared from their vocabulary. They will stab you, shoot you, break things in your apartment, say horrible things to your friends and family, and then justify this abhorrent behavior by saying: "Sure, I put your dog in the microwave. But I feel *better* for doing it." -- Bruce Feirstein, "Nice Guys Sleep Alone" % At the hospital, a doctor is training an intern on how to announce bad news to the patients. The doctor tells the intern "This man in 305 is going to die in six months. Go in and tell him." The intern boldly walks into the room, over to the man's bedisde and tells him "Seems like you're gonna die!" The man has a heart attack and is rushed into surgery on the spot. The doctor grabs the intern and screams at him, "What!?!? are you some kind of moron? You've got to take it easy, work your way up to the subject. Now this man in 213 has about a week to live. Go in and tell him, but, gently, you hear me, gently!" The intern goes softly into the room, humming to himself, cheerily opens the drapes to let the sun in, walks over to the man's bedside, fluffs his pillow and wishes him a "Good morning!" "Wonderful day, no? Say... guess who's going to die soon!" % Be a better psychiatrist and the world will beat a psychopath to your door. % Better to use medicines at the outset than at the last moment. % Certain old men prefer to rise at dawn, taking a cold bath and a long walk with an empty stomach and otherwise mortifying the flesh. They then point with pride to these practices as the cause of their sturdy health and ripe years; the truth being that they are hearty and old, not because of their habits, but in spite of them. The reason we find only robust persons doing this thing is that it has killed all the others who have tried it. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" % Cure the disease and kill the patient. -- Francis Bacon % Death has been proven to be 99% fatal in laboratory rats. % Dental health is next to mental health. % Ever notice that the word "therapist" breaks down into "the rapist"? Simple coincidence? Maybe... % For my son, Robert, this is proving to be the high-point of his entire life to date. He has had his pajamas on for two, maybe three days now. He has the sense of joyful independence a 5-year-old child gets when he suddenly realizes that he could be operating an acetylene torch in the coat closet and neither parent [because of the flu] would have the strength to object. He has been foraging for his own food, which means his diet consists entirely of "food" substances which are advertised only on Saturday-morning cartoon shows; substances that are the color of jukebox lights and that, for legal reasons, have their names spelled wrong, as in New Creemy Chok-'n'-Cheez Lumps o' Froot ("part of this complete breakfast"). -- Dave Barry, "Molecular Homicide" % Fortune's Exercising Truths: 1: Richard Simmons gets paid to exercise like a lunatic. You don't. 2. Aerobic exercises stimulate and speed up the heart. So do heart attacks. 3. Exercising around small children can scar them emotionally for life. 4. Sweating like a pig and gasping for breath is not refreshing. 5. No matter what anyone tells you, isometric exercises cannot be done quietly at your desk at work. People will suspect manic tendencies as you twitter around in your chair. 6. Next to burying bones, the thing a dog enjoys mosts is tripping joggers. 7. Locking four people in a tiny, cement-walled room so they can run around for an hour smashing a little rubber ball -- and each other -- with a hard racket should immediately be recognized for what it is: a form of insanity. 8. Fifty push-ups, followed by thirty sit-ups, followed by ten chin-ups, followed by one throw-up. 9. Any activity that can't be done while smoking should be avoided. % [From an announcement of a congress of the International Ontopsychology Association, in Rome]: The Ontopsychological school, availing itself of new research criteria and of a new telematic epistemology, maintains that social modes do not spring from dialectics of territory or of class, or of consumer goods, or of means of power, but rather from dynamic latencies capillarized in millions of individuals in system functions which, once they have reached the event maturation, burst forth in catastrophic phenomenology engaging a suitable stereotype protagonist or duty marionette (general, president, political party, etc.) to consummate the act of social schizophrenia in mass genocide. % God is dead and I don't feel all too well either.... -- Ralph Moonen % "Good health" is merely the slowest rate at which one can die. % Happiness is good health and a bad memory. -- Ingrid Bergman % Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die. % Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing. -- Redd Foxx % His ideas of first-aid stopped short of squirting soda water. -- P.G. Wodehouse % Human cardiac catheterization was introduced by Werner Forssman in 1929. Ignoring his department chief, and tying his assistant to an operating table to prevent her interference, he placed a ureteral catheter into a vein in his arm, advanced it to the right atrium [of his heart], and walked upstairs to the x-ray department where he took the confirmatory x-ray film. In 1956, Dr. Forssman was awarded the Nobel Prize. % I get my exercise acting as pallbearer to my friends who exercise. -- Chauncey Depew % I got the bill for my surgery. Now I know what those doctors were wearing masks for. -- James Boren % "I keep seeing spots in front of my eyes." "Did you ever see a doctor?" "No, just spots." % If a person (a) is poorly, (b) receives treatment intended to make him better, and (c) gets better, then no power of reasoning known to medical science can convince him that it may not have been the treatment that restored his health. -- Sir Peter Medawar, "The Art of the Soluble" % If I kiss you, that is an psychological interaction. On the other hand, if I hit you over the head with a brick, that is also a psychological interaction. The difference is that one is friendly and the other is not so friendly. The crucial point is if you can tell which is which. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot" % If you look like your driver's license photo -- see a doctor. If you look like your passport photo -- it's too late for a doctor. % It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist. It produces a false impression. -- Oscar Wilde. % It's no longer a question of staying healthy. It's a question of finding a sickness you like. -- Jackie Mason % It's not reality or how you perceive things that's important -- it's what you're taking for it... % Just because your doctor has a name for your condition doesn't mean he knows what it is. % Laetrile is the pits. % My doctorate's in Literature, but it seems like a pretty good pulse to me. % Neurotics build castles in the sky, Psychotics live in them, And psychiatrists collect the rent. % Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died. -- Erma Bombeck % New England Life, of course. Why do you ask? % page 46 ...a report citing a study by Dr. Thomas C. Chalmers, of the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, which compared two groups that were being used to test the theory that ascorbic acid is a cold preventative. "The group on placebo who thought they were on ascorbic acid," says Dr. Chalmers, "had fewer colds than the group on ascorbic acid who thought they were on placebo." page 56 The placebo is proof that there is no real separation between mind and body. Illness is always an interaction between both. It can begin in the mind and affect the body, or it can begin in the body and affect the mind, both of which are served by the same bloodstream. Attempts to treat most mental diseases as though they were completely free of physical causes and attempts to treat most bodily diseases as though the mind were in no way involved must be considered archaic in the light of new evidence about the way the human body functions. -- Norman Cousins, "Anatomy of an Illness as Perceived by the Patient" % Paralysis through analysis. % Proper treatment will cure a cold in seven days, but left to itself, a cold will hang on for a week. -- Darrell Huff % Psychiatry enables us to correct our faults by confessing our parents' shortcomings. -- Laurence J. Peter, "Peter's Principles" % Psychoanalysis is that mental illness for which it regards itself a therapy. -- Karl Kraus % Psychiatry is the care of the id by the odd. % Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you. -- C.G. Jung % Psychology. Mind over matter. Mind under matter? It doesn't matter. Never mind. % Pushing 30 is exercise enough. % Pushing 40 is exercise enough. % Quit worrying about your health. It'll go away. -- Robert Orben % Sigmund's wife wore Freudian slips. % Some people need a good imaginary cure for their painful imaginary ailment. % Sometimes the best medicine is to stop taking something. % Straw? No, too stupid a fad. I put soot on warts. % Stress has been pinpointed as a major cause of illness. To avoid overload and burnout, keep stress out of your life. Give it to others instead. Learn the "Gaslight" treatment, the "Are you talking to me?" technique, and the "Do you feel okay? You look pale." approach. Start with negotiation and implication. Advance to manipulation and humiliation. Above all, relax and have a nice day. % The 80's -- when you can't tell hairstyles from chemotherapy. % "... the Mayo Clinic, named after its founder, Dr. Ted Clinic ..." -- Dave Barry % "The molars, I'm sure, will be all right, the molars can take care of themselves," the old man said, no longer to me. "But what will become of the bicuspids?" -- The Old Man and his Bridge % The New England Journal of Medicine reports that 9 out of 10 doctors agree that 1 out of 10 doctors is an idiot. % The real reason psychology is hard is that psychologists are trying to do the impossible. % The reason they're called wisdom teeth is that the experience makes you wise. % The secret of healthy hitchhiking is to eat junk food. % The trouble with heart disease is that the first symptom is often hard to deal with: death. -- Michael Phelps % The Vet Who Surprised A Cow In the course of his duties in August 1977, a Dutch veterinary surgeon was required to treat an ailing cow. To investigate its internal gases he inserted a tube into that end of the animal not capable of facial expression and struck a match. The jet of flame set fire first to some bales of hay and then to the whole farm causing damage estimate at L45,000. The vet was later fined L140 for starting a fire in a manner surprising to the magistrates. The cow escaped with shock. -- Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures" % We have the flu. I don't know if this particular strain has an official name, but if it does, it must be something like "Martian Death Flu". You may have had it yourself. The main symptom is that you wish you had another setting on your electric blanket, up past "HIGH", that said "ELECTROCUTION". Another symptom is that you cease brushing your teeth, because (a) your teeth hurt, and (b) you lack the strength. Midway through the brushing process, you'd have to lie down in front of the sink to rest for a couple of hours, and rivulets of toothpaste foam would dribble sideways out of your mouth, eventually hardening into crusty little toothpaste stalagmites that would bond your head permanently to the bathroom floor, which is how the police would find you. You know the kind of flu I'm talking about. -- Dave Barry, "Molecular Homicide" % "Welcome back for you 13th consecutive week, Evelyn. Evelyn, will you go into the auto-suggestion booth and take your regular place on the psycho-prompter couch?" "Thank you, Red." "Now, Evelyn, last week you went up to $40,000 by properly citing your rivalry with your sibling as a compulsive sado-masochistic behavior pattern which developed out of an early post-natal feeding problem." "Yes, Red." "But -- later, when asked about pre-adolescent oedipal phantasy repressions, you rationalized twice and mental blocked three times. Now, at $300 per rationalization and $500 per mental block you lost $2,100 off your $40,000 leaving you with a total of $37,900. Now, any combination of two more mental blocks and either one rationalization or three defensive projections will put you out of the game. Are you willing to go ahead?" "Yes, Red." "I might say here that all of Evelyn's questions and answers have been checked for accuracy with her analyst. Now, Evelyn, for $80,000 explain the failure of your three marriages." "Well, I--" "We'll get back to Evelyn in one minute. First a word about our product." -- Jules Feiffer % When a lot of remedies are suggested for a disease, that means it can't be cured. -- Anton Chekhov, "The Cherry Orchard" % Your digestive system is your body's Fun House, whereby food goes on a long, dark, scary ride, taking all kinds of unexpected twists and turns, being attacked by vicious secretions along the way, and not knowing until the last minute whether it will be turned into a useful body part or ejected into the Dark Hole by Mister Sphincter. We Americans live in a nation where the medical-care system is second to none in the world, unless you count maybe 25 or 30 little scuzzball countries like Scotland that we could vaporize in seconds if we felt like it. -- Dave Barry, "Stay Fit & Healthy Until You're Dead" %

Re:Wall of text (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048152)

I have an ego the size of a house.

And control issues.

Re:Wall of text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048156)

I'm not fucking reading all of that. Someone sum it up in one or two sentences, please.

I think I'm qualified to render legal opinions because I draw breath. And I'm an attention whore.

Re:Wall of text (5, Insightful)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048238)

How about one word: Bullshit.

I'm just finishing my 2L year in law school and this diatribe is rubbish. The whole thing can be summed up as "I don't understand how the law works but here's what I think anyway."

I agree, completely, with the First Poster. Bennet's issue with the rental car analogy is his own personal limitation of knowledge. He asks rhetorical questions that can all be easily answered by an attorney. His critique reminds me of a creationist arguing over how an eye could develop. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean someone else can't.

Summary: this review is the Chevy Aveo of legal discussions: rubbish. Props to the Top Gear (UK) guys.

Re:Wall of text (2)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048350)

And I meant to write "I'm just finishing my 2L year in law school and even I know this diatribe is rubbish." I didn't mean to make it sound like as a rising 2L I know everything.

Re:Wall of text (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048516)

New tag...

"OhnoitsBennett"

Re:Wall of text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048558)

"I'm full of shit and have no idea what I'm talking about. But ignore that, the judge is wrong because the voices tell me so."

Re:Wall of text (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048562)

Would you prefer the text to be on a news organization's web site broken into several pages with advertisements scattered within it?

The commenter is definitely not a lawyer and claims to be a mathematician. It is written from that perspective which is, actually, quite wrong about the "logic" of law and presumes there is logic to law. Same as others, I stopped reading after the "car analogy" where a rental car agency cannot be a defendant. Uh.. yeah they can. Car maintenance, lending to someone unqualified, etc.

Okay, so I couldn't resist reading further anyway. You might want to read the part related to "presumed guilt." He literally presumes guilt which is contrary to our judicial ideals. The judge seems to want to enforce and support these ideals while the commenter wants them disregarded.

It's a good thing he's not a judge.

The real hurdle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36047858)

" But the real hurdle is convincing people that a non-lawyer is entitled to call out a federal judge on their logic in the first place."

As in Canada our federal judges are appointed, not elected by citizens, I can only hope we "call out" more judges when they make idiotic decisions in cases, such as when Parliament overruled the CRTC and a federal judge told them they could not.

 

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36047878)

I started reading, then got to the car rental part which made very little sense as a point in favour of Mr. Complainer & then I read the comments as it was much less to process.

At this point I feel that I have wasted my time reading that far & that I should probably slam my head into my desk in order to feel better. /Facepalm

Tripe (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36047892)

I gave up reading midway because the OP has no idea what precisely he's talking about and the claimed "logic" there is extremely weak. The reason the rental agency would likely be on the hook in that accident is that them and their employees are the only ones known to have access to those vehicles without more information, hence why they'd be the most likely party in any legal action.

As far as police and witness accounts, those are definitely very important in establishing the question of whether or not the lease applied to the suspect in question. With an IP you don't get any corroborating evidence at all until you raid the place and seize the computers and if you can't readily find the materials you've nothing else to lean on. So should somebody be at the residence as a guest or just using an open WAP you've no way of establishing which it is. And that there is the problem, because you don't have any assurance at all that the person assigned the IP was the person the ISP thinks it was you cannot equate the two situations. Plus, because of the way that DHCP works there have been cases where the completely wrong person was investigated due to timezone problems.

In other words, complete tripe, and you definitely don't need to be an attorney to see how weak the assertions here are.

Re:Tripe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048028)

I definitely spent more time reading the garbage at the bottom of the page (seems to be encoded with a char cipher of some form given the ordering of letters but I'm not going to waste time deciphering it enough to plug into Google and figure out what they pulled it from) than this article. The last thing ANY corporation needs is the right to attain information on users of a web service - all it would take something in the EULA "you must be at least 1 to use this site" and by hitting "I agree" you give them the right to look up anything they want to confirm this via ISP records - Zuckerberg probably funded this bs article.

Non-lawyer? (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36047900)

"the real hurdle is convincing people that a non-lawyer is entitled to call out a federal judge on their logic in the first place."

I think that's absolutely silly. Although having a JD may uniquely qualify you in matters of law, why should an average citizen not be allowed to question a judge's ruling? The laws are printed in books to which we can all refer and question the interpretation of.

I suspect the answer is, "because we like the judge's ruling" and if matters were reversed this statement would not have been included.

Re:Non-lawyer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048172)

If you are very well read in law than a paralegal or JD may not be required, otherwise what you think that law says may bear no resemblance to how it is applied in a court of law. The legal profession has their own language.
As for liking the ruling, maybe it's just that judge showed some common sense (which is actually very uncommon).

Re:Non-lawyer? (2)

Improv (2467) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048214)

Non-lawyers are "entitled" to question the ruling, but just like someone arguing with their cardiologist over plans for surgery, the person without the specialised training is likely to be pretty seriously off.

Re:Non-lawyer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048268)

If he hadn't spent so much time defending his right to an opinion, I would have given more credence to his opinion. Instead he comes across as an idiot jumping up and down and demanding that we listen to him.

Re:Non-lawyer? (4, Insightful)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048294)

Although having a JD may uniquely qualify you in matters of law, why should an average citizen not be allowed to question a judge's ruling?

The average citizen can question a judge's ruling all they want, but this article is a great reason for not doing so in public.

Re:Non-lawyer? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048568)

This concept of lay people reading laws out of books misses the entire point of our legal system. while laws were originally written in a simpler form, case law and precedent dictate how they are interpreted and intended to function. just because you read an original law and have an opinion of its intent, and how it applies in an individual case does that mean that is how it is applied legally at this time.
  my guess as a lay person is that there are overriding concerns of privacy or allowing corporations to conduct witch hunts with minimal evidence.

Re:Non-lawyer? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048822)

"the real hurdle is convincing people that a non-lawyer is entitled to call out a federal judge on their logic in the first place."

No, the real hurdle is convincing people that someone who has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of an ability to reason logically is entitled to call anyone out on their logic.

The question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36047908)

what does a complete fucking metrosexual left wing extremist entitlement baby like Bennett know about anything at all?

i am not a psychologist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36047936)

...but I think the OP has Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Oh, wait. I am not qualified to make that diagnosis due to my COMPLETE LACK OF QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING.

Re:i am not a psychologist... (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048702)

You're allowed to have that opinion if you like, and you might even be right despite no training. Lack of qualifications simply means you have no legal authority to do anything about it.

This is a prime example (3, Insightful)

name_already_taken (540581) | more than 2 years ago | (#36047964)

This is a prime example of why people without legal training should not attempt to critique court decisions.

Words that mean one thing to lay people mean something else to the courts.

On top of that, couldn't this have been summarized in some compact format so that readers know if they want to read the entire wall of text or not?

Re:This is a prime example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048250)

Wait, so now I have to be a lawyer to call out legal bullshit when I see it?

Re:This is a prime example (2)

ImprovOmega (744717) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048512)

No, but you should at least have some idea what you're talking about before you belly up to the table. This could be anything from "took a law class" to "studied material independently" to "read Groklaw for 8 years" but you should have *some* modicum of knowledge about legal quirks before you lambaste a judge's ruling.

Re:This is a prime example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048642)

This is a prime example of why people without legal training should not attempt to critique court decisions.
Words that mean one thing to lay people mean something else to the courts.

... and why must this be the case? It begs the question -- why can't the courts write things in a way that regular laypeople can understand in the way in which the court intends? Having a secret 'alternate' meaning to the English language is elitist, exclusionary, and just propagates the idea that the legal profession is a special guild in which we plebes aren't allowed to participate.

The fact that these peoples' decisions affect all of our lives in very concrete, often deleterious ways, makes it a real travesty that we have such little input into the process, and it's downright rude for lawyers and judges to dismiss comments with what you've parrotted above.

We damn well should critique the legal decisions made by our legal 'masters', loudly and often because we have a very large stake in what they do and say.

Bottom of this page? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36047970)

What on earth is going on at the bottom of this page?

Re:Bottom of this page? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048428)

What on earth is going on at the bottom of this page?

I know. What the hell is with the huge block of meaningless, indecipherable text? I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

Wait....what? You said the BOTTOM of the page? Oh, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, either.

The RIAA showed us how to abuse it (3, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048058)

First, because I don't think that subpoenaing a defendant's identity from a service provider constitutes an abuse of the legal system in and of itself.

The abuse does not come from the request itself, but usually what follows said request. The plaintiff usually knows that he has thin legal ground over his lawsuit and will pull back his suit before a judgement likely to favor the defendants (and set a landmark) can happen. He will then turn around and DIRECTLY contact each of those defendants that got outed in the discovery process and personally extort thousands of dollars from them under threat of ruining them through endless litigation that will cost them far more to defend themselves from a million dollar lawsuit.

Now THAT is textbook abuse.

So I read the fucking article. (1)

renek (1301131) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048070)

Am I missing something? I don't believe I have ever read anything by Bennet before, but this guy's argument is awful. None of the points he makes actually address the issues at hand. The two that pop out to me are: 1. Open wireless network, hacker, etc, IE you didn't download any infringing material and someone else used your IP. The judge argues this: "Moreover, VPR ignores the fact that IP subscribers are not necessarily copyright infringers." Bennet responds with: "Well, true — the assignee of the IP address might not be the actual copyright infringer. But, more generally, being named as a defendant in a lawsuit does not mean that you're at fault anyway — that's what the trial is for." So, once again, am I missing something or did he just agree with the main point of Judge Baker's entire argument? If the IP addy might not be the actual infringer and we in this country are supposedly innocent until proven guilty then the entire case should be thrown out. "Being named as a defendant in a lawsuit does not mean that you're at fault anyway." Really? How many people who have been wrongly accused of downloading child porn or something equally heinous only for the cops to say, "Oops". This of course leads to the second tenet of the arguement: "Could expedited discovery be used to wrest quick settlements, even from people who have done nothing wrong? The embarrassment of public exposure might be too great, the legal system too daunting and expensive, for some to ask whether VPR has competent evidence to prove its case." And then Bennet responds, agreeing with him once again. "Now these are actually all fair points. The logical error is that they apply to any lawsuit — Judge Baker makes no argument why these problems would be more pronounced in a lawsuit against 1,000 John Does." So in the end he agreed with Judge Baker's two main points (that support the rest of his argument). What am I missing?

Obligatory Movie Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048078)

Let off some steam, Bennett!

Re:Obligatory Movie Quote (1)

nugatory78 (971318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048554)

I finally managed to stop rofl. Finally something that made reading this worth while. I was feeling like I had been robbed of my time.

As a matter of law ... (3, Interesting)

debrain (29228) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048092)

Sir –

I read the article up to the point where it inferred that logic was lacking with respect to a car rental company being liable for the injuries caused by a driver who rented that car.

I propose a two-fold answer. As a matter of law, many states have statutes that require owners to be responsible for the accidents involving those who are using their car with permission. That's the end of the legal analysis in most cases. Why do we have that law, you ask? To protect victims.

The policy rationale for requiring owners to be responsible for the use of their vehicle by others is to protect victims by ensuring that when accidents occur there are insurers to compensate innocent victims (at least, this is the rationale in the fault-based systems such as most of the USA). In the case of rental cars the cost of that insurance is incurred by the rental car company, which cost they pass that cost onto the drivers.

How does society dictate that car rental agencies get insurance? By enacting statutes that make owners liable for the negligence of the drivers.

The alternative has been shown to result in patchy coverage of injuries occurring in motor vehicle accidents. This lack of coverage hurts innocent victims who, in fault-based insurance schemes, may have no recourse to compensation from uninsured or underinsured drivers.

Thus, to provide innocent victims with a recourse to compensation, many societies have decided that the owners of vehicles, who shall generally have insurance, shall be responsible for the accidents caused by drivers of their vehicles, who may not have insurance.

Of course this policy and such laws are not uniform. In some cases the owner must be shown to be negligent or otherwise responsible or aware of the driver's behaviour.

I'm not sure if this was the basis for the logic of the Judge in this case, but it's a well known rationale that I thought may be worth sharing.

The rest of the article was tl;dr.

Re:As a matter of law ... (0)

Tim C (15259) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048280)

I read the article up to the point where it inferred that logic was lacking

It implied, from which you inferred.

Re:As a matter of law ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048446)

An article can infer "that logic was lacking," as you could see from reading the definition: Definition of INFER transitive verb 1 : to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises

ip's != people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048096)

ip's come and go, they really are not reliable to identify people. anyone who knows what they're doing can spoof them... you newbs saying otherwise should go back to college and learn that, those of us who never went to college and really are in touch with reality know this.

Nonsense comment at bottom of page - derived from: (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048102)

http://www.fusionplant.com/archive/textfiles/gnu_fortune/gnu_fortune_medicine

In case you were wondering.

A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS:

1. DO NOT EXPECT YOUR DOCTOR TO SHARE YOUR DISCOMFORT.
        Involvement with the patient's suffering might cause him to lose
        valuable scientific objectivity.

2. BE CHEERFUL AT ALL TIMES.
        Your doctor leads a busy and trying life and requires all the
        gentleness and reassurance he can get.

3. TRY TO SUFFER FROM THE DISEASE FOR WHICH YOU ARE BEING TREATED.
        Remember that your doctor has a professional reputation to uphold.
%
A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS:

4. DO NOT COMPLAIN IF THE TREATMENT FAILS TO BRING RELIEF.
        You must believe that your doctor has achieved a deep insight into
        the true nature of your illness, which transcends any mere permanent
        disability you may have experienced.

5. NEVER ASK YOUR DOCTOR TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE IS DOING OR WHY HE IS DOING IT.
        It is presumptuous to assume that such profound matters could be
        explained in terms that you would understand.

6. SUBMIT TO NOVEL EXPERIMANTAL TREATMENT READILY.
        Though the surgery may not benefit you directly, the resulting
        research paper will surely be of widespread interest.
%
A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS:

7. PAY YOUR MEDICAL BILLS PROMPTLY AND WILLINGLY.
        You should consider it a privilege to contribute, however modestly,
        to the well-being of physicians and other humanitarians.

8. DO NOT SUFFER FROM AILMENTS THAT YOU CANNOT AFFORD.
        It is sheer arrogance to contract illnesses that are beyond your means.

9. NEVER REVEAL ANY OF THE SHORTCOMINGS THAT HAVE COME TO LIGHT IN THE COURSE
      OF TREATMENT BY YOUR DOCTOR.
        The patient-doctor relationship is a privileged one, and you have a
        sacred duty to protect him from exposure.

10. NEVER DIE WHILE IN YOUR DOCTOR'S PRESENCE OR UNDER HIS DIRECT CARE.
        This will only cause him needless inconvenience and embarrassment.
%
A distraught patient phoned her doctor's office. "Was it true," the woman
inquired, "that the medication the doctor had prescribed was for the rest
of her life?"
        She was told that it was. There was just a moment of silence before
the woman proceeded bravely on. "Well, I'm wondering, then, how serious my
condition is. This prescription is marked `NO REFILLS'".
%
A doctor calls his patient to give him the results of his tests. "I have
some bad news," says the doctor, "and some worse news." The bad news is
that you only have six weeks to live."
        "Oh, no," says the patient. "What could possibly be worse than that?"
        "Well," the doctor replies, "I've been trying to reach you since
last Monday."
%
A woman physician has made the statement that smoking is neither
physically defective nor morally degrading, and that nicotine, even
when indulged to in excess, is less harmful than excessive petting."
                -- Purdue Exponent, Jan 16, 1925
%
A woman went into a hospital one day to give birth. Afterwards, the doctor
came to her and said, "I have some... odd news for you."
        "Is my baby all right?" the woman anxiously asked.
        "Yes, he is," the doctor replied, "but we don't know how. Your son
(we assume) was born with no body. He only has a head."
        Well, the doctor was correct. The Head was alive and well, though no
one knew how. The Head turned out to be fairly normal, ignoring his lack of
a body, and lived for some time as typical a life as could be expected under
the circumstances.
        One day, about twenty years after the fateful birth, the woman got a
phone call from another doctor. The doctor said, "I have recently perfected
an operation. Your son can live a normal life now: we can graft a body onto
his head!"
        The woman, practically weeping with joy, thanked the doctor and hung
up. She ran up the stairs saying, "Johnny, Johnny, I have a *wonderful*
surprise for you!"
        "Oh no," cried The Head, "not another HAT!"
%
After his legs had been broken in an accident, Mr. Miller sued for damages,
claming that he was crippled and would have to spend the rest of his life
in a wheelchair. Although the insurance-company doctor testified that his
bones had healed properly and that he was fully capable of walking, the
judge decided for the plaintiff and awarded him $500,000.
        When he was wheeled into the insurance office to collect his check,
Miller was confronted by several executives. "You're not getting away with
this, Miller," one said. "We're going to watch you day and night. If you
take a single step, you'll not only repay the damages but stand trial for
perjury. Here's the money. What do you intend to do with it?"
        "My wife and I are going to travel," Miller replied. "We'll go to
Stockholm, Berlin, Rome, Athens and, finally, to a place called Lourdes --
where, gentlemen, you'll see yourselves one hell of a miracle."
%
After twelve years of therapy my psychiatrist said something that
brought tears to my eyes. He said, "No hablo ingles."
                -- Ronnie Shakes
%
Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.
                -- Samuel Goldwyn
%
Aquavit is also considered useful for medicinal purposes, an essential
ingredient in what I was once told is the Norwegian cure for the common
cold. You get a bottle, a poster bed, and the brightest colored stocking
cap you can find. You put the cap on the post at the foot of the bed,
then get into bed and drink aquavit until you can't see the cap. I've
never tried this, but it sounds as though it should work.
                -- Peter Nelson
%
        As a general rule of thumb, never trust anybody who's been in therapy
for more than 15 percent of their life span. The words "I am sorry" and "I
am wrong" will have totally disappeared from their vocabulary. They will stab
you, shoot you, break things in your apartment, say horrible things to your
friends and family, and then justify this abhorrent behavior by saying:
"Sure, I put your dog in the microwave. But I feel *better* for doing it."
                -- Bruce Feirstein, "Nice Guys Sleep Alone"
%
At the hospital, a doctor is training an intern on how to announce bad news
to the patients. The doctor tells the intern "This man in 305 is going to
die in six months. Go in and tell him." The intern boldly walks into the
room, over to the man's bedisde and tells him "Seems like you're gonna die!"
The man has a heart attack and is rushed into surgery on the spot. The doctor
grabs the intern and screams at him, "What!?!? are you some kind of moron?
You've got to take it easy, work your way up to the subject. Now this man in
213 has about a week to live. Go in and tell him, but, gently, you hear me,
gently!"
        The intern goes softly into the room, humming to himself, cheerily
opens the drapes to let the sun in, walks over to the man's bedside, fluffs
his pillow and wishes him a "Good morning!" "Wonderful day, no? Say...
guess who's going to die soon!"
%
Be a better psychiatrist and the world will beat a psychopath to your door.
%
Better to use medicines at the outset than at the last moment.
%
Certain old men prefer to rise at dawn, taking a cold bath and a long
walk with an empty stomach and otherwise mortifying the flesh. They
then point with pride to these practices as the cause of their sturdy
health and ripe years; the truth being that they are hearty and old,
not because of their habits, but in spite of them. The reason we find
only robust persons doing this thing is that it has killed all the
others who have tried it.
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
%
Cure the disease and kill the patient.
                -- Francis Bacon
%
Death has been proven to be 99% fatal in laboratory rats.
%
Dental health is next to mental health.
%
Ever notice that the word "therapist" breaks down into "the rapist"?
Simple coincidence?
Maybe...
%
For my son, Robert, this is proving to be the high-point of his entire life
to date. He has had his pajamas on for two, maybe three days now. He has
the sense of joyful independence a 5-year-old child gets when he suddenly
realizes that he could be operating an acetylene torch in the coat closet
and neither parent [because of the flu] would have the strength to object.
He has been foraging for his own food, which means his diet consists
entirely of "food" substances which are advertised only on Saturday-morning
cartoon shows; substances that are the color of jukebox lights and that, for
legal reasons, have their names spelled wrong, as in New Creemy
Chok-'n'-Cheez Lumps o' Froot ("part of this complete breakfast").
                -- Dave Barry, "Molecular Homicide"
%
Fortune's Exercising Truths:

1: Richard Simmons gets paid to exercise like a lunatic. You don't.
2. Aerobic exercises stimulate and speed up the heart. So do heart attacks.
3. Exercising around small children can scar them emotionally for life.
4. Sweating like a pig and gasping for breath is not refreshing.
5. No matter what anyone tells you, isometric exercises cannot be done
        quietly at your desk at work. People will suspect manic tendencies as
        you twitter around in your chair.
6. Next to burying bones, the thing a dog enjoys mosts is tripping joggers.
7. Locking four people in a tiny, cement-walled room so they can run around
        for an hour smashing a little rubber ball -- and each other -- with a hard
        racket should immediately be recognized for what it is: a form of insanity.
8. Fifty push-ups, followed by thirty sit-ups, followed by ten chin-ups,
        followed by one throw-up.
9. Any activity that can't be done while smoking should be avoided.
%
[From an announcement of a congress of the International Ontopsychology
Association, in Rome]:

The Ontopsychological school, availing itself of new research criteria and
of a new telematic epistemology, maintains that social modes do not spring
from dialectics of territory or of class, or of consumer goods, or of means
of power, but rather from dynamic latencies capillarized in millions of
individuals in system functions which, once they have reached the event
maturation, burst forth in catastrophic phenomenology engaging a suitable
stereotype protagonist or duty marionette (general, president, political
party, etc.) to consummate the act of social schizophrenia in mass genocide.
%
God is dead and I don't feel all too well either....
                -- Ralph Moonen
%
"Good health" is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.
%
Happiness is good health and a bad memory.
                -- Ingrid Bergman
%
Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
%
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying
of nothing.
                -- Redd Foxx
%
His ideas of first-aid stopped short of squirting soda water.
                -- P.G. Wodehouse
%
Human cardiac catheterization was introduced by Werner Forssman in 1929.
Ignoring his department chief, and tying his assistant to an operating
table to prevent her interference, he placed a ureteral catheter into
a vein in his arm, advanced it to the right atrium [of his heart], and
walked upstairs to the x-ray department where he took the confirmatory
x-ray film. In 1956, Dr. Forssman was awarded the Nobel Prize.
%
I get my exercise acting as pallbearer to my friends who exercise.
                -- Chauncey Depew
%
I got the bill for my surgery. Now I know what those doctors were
wearing masks for.
                -- James Boren
%
        "I keep seeing spots in front of my eyes."
        "Did you ever see a doctor?"
        "No, just spots."
%
If a person (a) is poorly, (b) receives treatment intended to make him better,
and (c) gets better, then no power of reasoning known to medical science can
convince him that it may not have been the treatment that restored his health.
                -- Sir Peter Medawar, "The Art of the Soluble"
%
        If I kiss you, that is an psychological interaction.
        On the other hand, if I hit you over the head with a brick,
that is also a psychological interaction.
        The difference is that one is friendly and the other is not
so friendly.
        The crucial point is if you can tell which is which.
                -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"
%
If you look like your driver's license photo -- see a doctor.
If you look like your passport photo -- it's too late for a doctor.
%
It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist.
It produces a false impression.
                -- Oscar Wilde.
%
It's no longer a question of staying healthy. It's a question of finding
a sickness you like.
                -- Jackie Mason
%
It's not reality or how you perceive things that's important -- it's
what you're taking for it...
%
Just because your doctor has a name for your condition doesn't mean he
knows what it is.
%
Laetrile is the pits.
%
My doctorate's in Literature, but it seems like a pretty good pulse to me.
%
Neurotics build castles in the sky,
Psychotics live in them,
And psychiatrists collect the rent.
%
Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.
                -- Erma Bombeck
%
New England Life, of course. Why do you ask?
%
        page 46 ...a report citing a study by Dr. Thomas C. Chalmers, of the Mount Sinai
Medical Center in New York, which compared two groups that were being used
to test the theory that ascorbic acid is a cold preventative. "The group
on placebo who thought they were on ascorbic acid," says Dr. Chalmers,
"had fewer colds than the group on ascorbic acid who thought they were
on placebo."
        page 56
The placebo is proof that there is no real separation between mind and body.
Illness is always an interaction between both. It can begin in the mind and
affect the body, or it can begin in the body and affect the mind, both of
which are served by the same bloodstream. Attempts to treat most mental
diseases as though they were completely free of physical causes and attempts
to treat most bodily diseases as though the mind were in no way involved must
be considered archaic in the light of new evidence about the way the human
body functions.
                -- Norman Cousins,
                "Anatomy of an Illness as Perceived by the Patient"
%
Paralysis through analysis.
%
Proper treatment will cure a cold in seven days, but left to itself,
a cold will hang on for a week.
                -- Darrell Huff
%
Psychiatry enables us to correct our faults by confessing our parents'
shortcomings.
                -- Laurence J. Peter, "Peter's Principles"
%
Psychoanalysis is that mental illness for which it regards itself a therapy.
                -- Karl Kraus
%
Psychiatry is the care of the id by the odd.
%
Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you.
                -- C.G. Jung
%
Psychology. Mind over matter. Mind under matter? It doesn't matter.
Never mind.
%
Pushing 30 is exercise enough.
%
Pushing 40 is exercise enough.
%
Quit worrying about your health. It'll go away.
                -- Robert Orben
%
Sigmund's wife wore Freudian slips.
%
Some people need a good imaginary cure for their painful imaginary ailment.
%
Sometimes the best medicine is to stop taking something.
%
Straw? No, too stupid a fad. I put soot on warts.
%
Stress has been pinpointed as a major cause of illness. To avoid overload
and burnout, keep stress out of your life. Give it to others instead. Learn
the "Gaslight" treatment, the "Are you talking to me?" technique, and the
"Do you feel okay? You look pale." approach. Start with negotiation and
implication. Advance to manipulation and humiliation. Above all, relax
and have a nice day.
%
The 80's -- when you can't tell hairstyles from chemotherapy.
%
"... the Mayo Clinic, named after its founder, Dr. Ted Clinic ..."
                -- Dave Barry
%
"The molars, I'm sure, will be all right, the molars can take care of
themselves," the old man said, no longer to me. "But what will become
of the bicuspids?"
                -- The Old Man and his Bridge
%
The New England Journal of Medicine reports that 9 out of 10 doctors agree
that 1 out of 10 doctors is an idiot.
%
The real reason psychology is hard is that psychologists are trying to
do the impossible.
%
The reason they're called wisdom teeth is that the experience makes you wise.
%
The secret of healthy hitchhiking is to eat junk food.
%
The trouble with heart disease is that the first symptom is often hard to
deal with: death.
                -- Michael Phelps
%
The Vet Who Surprised A Cow
        In the course of his duties in August 1977, a Dutch veterinary
surgeon was required to treat an ailing cow. To investigate its internal
gases he inserted a tube into that end of the animal not capable of facial
expression and struck a match. The jet of flame set fire first to some
bales of hay and then to the whole farm causing damage estimate at L45,000.
The vet was later fined L140 for starting a fire in a manner surprising to
the magistrates. The cow escaped with shock.
                -- Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures"
%
We have the flu. I don't know if this particular strain has an official
name, but if it does, it must be something like "Martian Death Flu". You
may have had it yourself. The main symptom is that you wish you had another
setting on your electric blanket, up past "HIGH", that said "ELECTROCUTION".
        Another symptom is that you cease brushing your teeth, because (a)
your teeth hurt, and (b) you lack the strength. Midway through the brushing
process, you'd have to lie down in front of the sink to rest for a couple
of hours, and rivulets of toothpaste foam would dribble sideways out of your
mouth, eventually hardening into crusty little toothpaste stalagmites that
would bond your head permanently to the bathroom floor, which is how the
police would find you.
        You know the kind of flu I'm talking about.
                -- Dave Barry, "Molecular Homicide"
%
        "Welcome back for you 13th consecutive week, Evelyn. Evelyn, will
you go into the auto-suggestion booth and take your regular place on the
psycho-prompter couch?"
        "Thank you, Red."
        "Now, Evelyn, last week you went up to $40,000 by properly citing
your rivalry with your sibling as a compulsive sado-masochistic behavior
pattern which developed out of an early post-natal feeding problem."
        "Yes, Red."
        "But -- later, when asked about pre-adolescent oedipal phantasy
repressions, you rationalized twice and mental blocked three times. Now,
at $300 per rationalization and $500 per mental block you lost $2,100 off
your $40,000 leaving you with a total of $37,900. Now, any combination of
two more mental blocks and either one rationalization or three defensive
projections will put you out of the game. Are you willing to go ahead?"
        "Yes, Red."
        "I might say here that all of Evelyn's questions and answers have
been checked for accuracy with her analyst. Now, Evelyn, for $80,000
explain the failure of your three marriages."
        "Well, I--"
        "We'll get back to Evelyn in one minute. First a word about our
product."
                -- Jules Feiffer
%
When a lot of remedies are suggested for a disease, that means it can't
be cured.
                -- Anton Chekhov, "The Cherry Orchard"
%
Your digestive system is your body's Fun House, whereby food goes on a long,
dark, scary ride, taking all kinds of unexpected twists and turns, being
attacked by vicious secretions along the way, and not knowing until the last
minute whether it will be turned into a useful body part or ejected into the
Dark Hole by Mister Sphincter. We Americans live in a nation where the
medical-care system is second to none in the world, unless you count maybe
25 or 30 little scuzzball countries like Scotland that we could vaporize in
seconds if we felt like it.
                -- Dave Barry, "Stay Fit & Healthy Until You're Dead"
%

Meh (3, Insightful)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048136)

If I were the movie music industry I'd be supporting the transition to IP v6, as it reduces the ambiguity. But then again, the shadow of doubt related to IP addresses in identifying criminals is still quite large.

Another part of his argument is that the truth will be revealed in court, the purpose of many of the summons is not to get to court but to get revenue, We have seen when people take action on a false claim the companies, try to drop the matter wirhout incurring expense or wrongdoing on their part, that has highlighted there is more than a shadow of a doubt with the current method of discovery.

Standards of proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048572)

Civil court: by a preponderance of evidence.
Criminal court: beyond a reasonable doubt.

No proceeding uses the "shadow of doubt" "standard" because it's neither instructive nor standardized.

What a load of crap (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048164)

Obviously if you are "damaged" by a rental car you sue the rental car company they will then hand over the guy who rented the car on a silver platter to you. If you don't directly sue the ISP when you are "damaged" by an IP address then the anoalogy is completey invalid as the Judge stated.

Now I don't know the lagalities and whether you do or do not sue the ISP in that case, but you weren't arguing based on legalities you were arguing based on logic (well at least claiming to).

And no I didn't read any further, given how stupid the lead argument was.

forget Bennett, what the hell is that?! (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048174)

Anyone else seeing what looks like chants to Cthulu written in Orcish at the bottom of the page for today's QOTD?

Re:forget Bennett, what the hell is that?! (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048258)

Oh, that? That's just the ramblings of frequent Slashdot contributor Oraargg Unfrygba.

Re:forget Bennett, what the hell is that?! (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048304)

It's rot-13ed, and starts thus:

A CODE OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR FOR PATIENTS: 1. DO NOT EXPECT YOUR DOCTOR TO SHARE YOUR DISCOMFORT

Re:forget Bennett, what the hell is that?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048358)

ROT13, dude. Guessed it immediately, actually. The plaintext doesn't really seem to indicate any reason why it's in ROT13. Didn't read it all though.

Expertise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048194)

Mathematicians commenting on law, is equivalent to the perpetual motion crackpots commenting on physics.

Absurd credentialism (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048202)

But the real hurdle is convincing people that a non-lawyer is entitled to call out a federal judge on their logic in the first place.

That's because most Americans don't read the tortured logic they often employ to justify their decisions. Kelo v. New London would give a normal person a brain aneurysm trying to wrap their mind around the thought process used to justify an upward redistribution of real estate wealth to rich land developers on the basis that their ability to generate better public revenues is a "public purpose" under the 5th amendment.

Those of us who have read a few major court rulings are well aware of how fallible they are. In my opinion, this is a typical example of why mass democracy is deadly to a republic. You have an ignorant, teeming mass of voters who are "deferring to their betters" in the judiciary while simultaneously wanting the privileges that are granted to an informed and responsible electorate.

Re:Absurd credentialism (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048300)

More than that, you need to filter out the nutjobs who would otherwise sue everyone and everything using insane troll logic to justify themselves and would constantly bog down the legal process by questioning even well established facts by claiming that "nobody ever proved it to them." Having lawyers as necessary middlemen does remove a whole lot of clutter for this specific problem, and if the lawyer himself becomes the problem, Jack Thompson demonstrated how well that ends up for them.

You have no clue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048212)

First of all, truth is not decided by popular vote. Something either is, or is not true. You apparently spend too much time on social web sites that entice you to "make yourself heard" by voting for some silly thing or other.

I won't go through all the problems in your diatribe, but I have to point to one place where you are just so ignorant its pathetic.

Your 'response' to the Judge's statement - "As VPR points out, ex parte motions for expedited discovery have been granted in similar cases in other districts; among the thousands of Does in those cases, relatively few motions to quash have been filed" - is spot on... if you had only stopped after the first 10 words - "I'm not even sure what Judge Baker is saying here..."

Clearly you have not researched the issue about which you seem to think you're an expert. The reason relatively few motions to quash have been filed is because the deadline for filing a motion to quash passes before those being sued have been identified and made aware of being sued. That's why they are named "Does", as in John and Jane. Only after the expedited discovery has taken place are real names matched up with IP addresses, and then its too late for those people to quash the expedited discovery motion.

You really need to knock your self-assessment of your intelligence down several pegs. You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. In fact, you come across as one of those Idol contestants that think they are the next superstar and are just pathetically awful singers.

Really? Corporate users linked to IP address? (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048220)

What are you smoking?

In fact, in the case of, say, a corporate network, it's more likely that an IP address would have been assigned by the IT department to a specific, trackable user, and not shared out on an unsecured Wi-Fi network where the IP could have been hi-jacked by a car parked on the street

Have you ever worked in a corporation? If so, have you ever worked in the IT department of a corporation? These questions are rhetorical since your conclusion is obviously based on not having done so. The IP addresses in most cases are not static assigned, especially to workstations, desktop PCs, and laptops. Why? Because it is a royal pain once you start dealing with people moving between multiple buildings or subnets. No IT department would ever want to handle dealing with changing IP addresses, switch configurations, VLANS, or routers whenever someone moves between two locations. No, they setup large DHCP pools on different subnets across the different buildings. If a laptop moves to a new location (say for a meeting or presentation in a conference room), the wifi network picks up the DHCP request and issues a new address based on what is available in the pool. If that user then goes back to his desk and puts the laptop in the docking station, it does another DHCP request over the wired network (which should be a different VLAN/subnet than the wireless for security sake) and gets yet a different IP address from a different DHCP pool.

Just about the ONLY thing that an IT department will assign static IP addresses to would be servers, and good luck claiming that an IP will point to a user on a server when there are potentially 100+ people using that server (we must have 50 - 100 servers for which at any given time there are at least 50 people logged into them).

Re:Really? Corporate users linked to IP address? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048830)

Your argument is idiotic: you can look at the DHCP vs MAC address logs, look up the hostname (Windows machines) etc, the service tag vs MAC address in your database, etc.

TRWTF is that the OP hasn't ever heard of "NAT." At a corporation, if you connect to a Web site, you see a single IP address assigned to that corporation connecting to that Web server. NAT servers don't log this. Still, it's doable: time vs source port. NAT lets 64511 people connect to some address on port 80 by assigning them a different source port.

Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048256)

I'm always interested in hearing why people think I might be mistaken

You're mistaken because you write a lot of words and succeed in not actually saying anything.

Face smear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048306)

That was a face-smearing moment. I can't believe I made it so far, but you said,

In fact, in the case of, say, a corporate network, it's more likely that an IP address would have been assigned by the IT department to a specific, trackable user, and not shared out on an unsecured Wi-Fi network...

BULLSHIT. You _clearly_ have no idea how networks work in general. My company network has 5 IP addresses, static, on the cable line. We use a grand total of... ONE of them for _all_ of our internet access. Every single employee that accesses the network from any machine whatsoever in the building, and any of the machines we hook up for updates (we run through about 50-100 unique machines, in addition to the 20 or so static office machines) uses _exactly_the_same_ IP address to access the internet.

So in my case, any of these 100 machines could be the culprit. The only pieces of information they could have are 1. IP address, 2. time, 3. port. If they provided me with a time, I could get a list of what machines had a DHCP address at that time -- assuming the information hadn't timed out according to the 7-day (or is it 1-day?) lease period. If they gave me the port, I would be unable to do anything with it at all. I have no logs of what IP connected to what port when, nor what port was assigned for what machine when. Those log files would be massive. I don't think FreeBSD (the base of my router) even _supports_ that sort of logging. So when it hits my router, they ran into the base of a tree and they're looking for a specific leaf without any idea where it is or what it looks like. If the downloader set up a static IP and didn't use DHCP, I have no record of them being on the network at all. I'm interested in any details anyone can give me on how to retain more information, but I can't (CAN NOT) set up any sort of authentication for internet connections.

Haven't you ever heard of NAT? Don't you realize that _EVERY_ home router uses NAT and puts multiple users behind _one_ ip address? Don't you realize companies do exactly the same thing so they don't have to buy a quarter million IP addresses each?

Where the hell is the logic here? You seem to be unable to grasp the most basic of issues here. The judge has a much firmer grasp over what's going on that what you've demonstrated. Please, get off the internet, or at least shut up.

BTW, I think the judge's argument about IP's being leased out like a car rental agency is very adept and creative. It does _not_ suggest that information behind an IP address should not be able to be subpoenaed, but probably cause is probably much more necessary to do so (in the case of a rental agency, and should be in the ISP instance). Even so, when you subpoena the first rental agency (the ISP), you're likely to get another that maintains much less accurate records (the home router, company router, whatever). As things go now, it's abused, and needs to be reined in; forbidding it is not the answer, but honestly, it's the best option until specific rules, allowed usages, reasonable investigative practices, whatever take place.

This guy is wrong on some points. (1)

REALMAN (218538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048308)

I think this guy is wrong.

The reason it's not reasonable to give out a subpoena for 1000 "John Does" is that the judge is not allowed to use the probability ratio that, as you stated, 90 percent of the IP holders are the actual infringers as a basis for probable cause for the subpoena. He must have probable cause for EACH individual person as a separate entity. This is the reason he mentioned that some are assigned to Universities.

For example. Say you are one of those John Does and you live in an apartment building with 3 floors and 7 apt's per floor. You live on the second floor in the center most apartment. You have unsecured WiFi. The probability that you are the infringer is now potentially only 1 in 21. That would not provide probable cause for the subpoena.

Pfft (1)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048338)

Well the guy might have a point about the Judges analogy and as analogies go they are much like a generality; it does not cover all the bases. However Mr. Haselton is barking up the WRONG tree. While the analogy may have logic holes one thing is for sure about the Judges position; the Judge is absolutely right; an IP address is associated to a MAC address not an Individual.

I love comment sections. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048348)

Because for text walls like this, you can skim through the comments of the people that actually read the text wall, and figure out if it's worth reading.
Consensus is pretty much "No, you're an idiot", so thanks slashdot commenters for saving me time.

Innocent Until Suspected of Guilt, eh? (1)

PlaneShaper (1830294) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048356)

I admit, I got about halfway through this willing to concede some aspects of earlier points could have been made stronger by the judge. Until I got here:

"I certainly don't want to take the position that anyone who doesn't deny their guilt is guilty — but we shouldn't assume that they're innocent, either. Come on — it's not that hard for a copyright holder to join a p2p network or find a Torrent tracker, and get a list of the IP address of a few users who are sharing or downloading their content illegally. Is it that hard to believe that most of the users on that list are probably doing what VPR said they were doing?"

Assumption of innocence isn't just not a thing we shouldn't be doing, it is the very thing required of us to, in fact, do. Especially when the situation in question makes it easy to presume guilt without evidence, then it is even more important we not assume guilt just because of our ability to believe the accusation.

Identities should most certainly NOT go to the corporation asking for them. Instead, the list of IP address should be passed to the appropriate authorities who can then conduct legitimate investigations as needed to obtain further evidence of any possible crime. The corporation should not receive any identity information about suspects until investigations conclude a crime has taken place.

Here's a wild and crazy thought.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048440)

If an infringement comes from an IP owned by an ISP, why don't they just sue the ISP? I'm saying to simply forget about this whole protection for service providers thing... and go after the party that one has the resources to determine is most responsible for the infringement.

The ISP, meanwhile, would be lawfully entitled to collect all damages (including legal expenses) from the subscriber who is accountable for the MAC address allocated to that IP at the time of infringement.

The subscriber, in turn, would be lawfully entitled to collect all damages (including legal expenses) from any person that they could provide adequate evidence is either directly guilty of the infringement, or else is somehow still legally accountable in some way to the ISP subscriber for the incident.

The actual infringer, or at least the identifiable party who is most closely responsible for the activities of the infringer, pays an appropriate penalty, the subscriber's privacy is retained, and identities are not revealed to third parties, lawyers get rich... everybody wins.

Don't read it (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048542)

Don't bother reading the wall of text. Well, the last paragraph is actually decent, but the rest is crap.

This article shows one of the big things that's wrong with mass media in general: overconfident people with a big mouth (or a high WPM) get to reach a hugely disproportionate number of people, when compared with their ability to relate truth. In a world filled with too much information to process, it's more than just unfortunate to have so much inexpert shit to sort through: it's tragic. Can you imagine a world where Glenn Beck starts his show by saying "I have nothing of importance to say today; maybe tomorrow. Here's some music"? Wouldn't it be wonderful?

Great Analogy Actually (1)

Trintech (1137007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048548)

So again: Huh? Why is a rental car agency liable for an accident caused by one of its renters? Obviously if the rental car agency was negligent in the maintenance of one of its vehicles and that negligence led to the accident, they might be liable — but not simply if their customer did something reckless over which they had no control (which would be analogous to an ISP subscriber committing a copyright infringement that the ISP didn't know about).
...
"The analogy between an ISP and a rental car agency is inappropriate, because a plaintiff could sue the rental car agency in order to subpoena the identity of the renter that hit them, but a copyright owner could not do the same to an ISP." [Judge Baker's argument.]

I think this is actually a great analogy because, you see, the rental car company could install cameras and GPS in all of their vehicles to make sure that the people driving their cars were not breaking the law (speeding, texting while driving, driving under the influence,etc) and law enforcement could then subpoena these records anytime they think some rental car driver might have been breaking the law, but since the rental car companies don't do this, they are clearly being negligent (/sarcasm). This is very much akin to many of the arguments being made by copyright holders in court against ISPs / certain websites.

article should be retitled to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048698)

A Mathematician Barely Making Sense.

The second issue I have with this guys argument is (1)

REALMAN (218538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048726)

The Judge mentioned that he noticed a low number of motions to quash in these types of ex parte expedited discovery cases. Ex parte means without notice to the accused. The low number is more than likely the result of the policies of the particular ISP's in regards to giving notice to the subscriber that there is a subpoena for their information.

The judge rightly noticed this discrepancy along with the fact that in some cases the IP holder was not the infringing party. The motion to quash is an essential right of the accused so they can tell the court "hey, I live in an apartment bldg with 20 people who could be leeching off my wireless therefore the subpoena should be quashed because there isn't enough probable cause that I am the infringer".

The ex parte discovery process for that many people is likely to violate someone's rights and this is why the judge denied it.

Bennett Haselton is spectacularly clueless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36048730)

And long winded. My god, Mr Hasselton, you will never have critical thinking skills, but perhaps you can hire some unlucky editor to read your diatribes and reduce the word count by about 96%.

Where the analogy fails (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048756)

You can subpoena the owner of a car to find out who the driver was. This happens when you privately own a car, if the car is involved in an accident you will be asked who the driver was. And it happens if you are a rental car company; if the rental car is involved in an accident, they will be asked who the driver was.

Same with a router. If your router was involved in illegal copying or worse things, you can be asked who was using that router. But... your ISP doesn't own the router. Your ISP doesn't have to answer a subpoena. Only the _owner_ of the router has to. So if they find you, you'll have to tell them who used the router (me, my wife and children, the neighbours, and any criminal who came within 50 meters of my home). Just like Ford or GM don't have to respond if a car that they built is involved in an accident and don't have to give someone a list of everyone buying their cars.

You're a moron. (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048812)

If you were injured by someone in a rental car and you tried to get their license plate: YOU WOULDN'T GET IT. You would report the incident to the police, who would then subpoena the information and charge the person with something and fine/imprison them. If you wanted damages you would sue the rental agency... win and take their money. THEY would sue the person that they rented the car from. They could chose to give you the name of the person they rented the car to, but they'd be under no requirement to do so.

yada (1)

The Shootist (324679) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048842)

It is everyone's 'right' to call out the Judge. But Judges are Judges because they have been judged to have better judgement than those laypeople who would call out the Judge.

Or something.

Regardless, IP addresses are not people. The Judge got that part right.

Next week on Slashdot... (1)

Zalbik (308903) | more than 2 years ago | (#36048850)

Next week on Slashdot...

Lawyers discuss the legal reasons why P=NP.

It would probably make more sense than this article.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...