Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Federal Judge Rules P2P Users Aren't In a Conspiracy

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the personal-responsibility dept.

The Courts 66

Fluffeh writes "Judge Holderman ruled against copyright holders who were trying to paint a rather distorted picture. They sue just one Internet user, but use that lawsuit as a pretext to subpoena other defendants who had participated in the same BitTorrent swarm. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that the other users had participated in a "conspiracy" to assist one another in distributing particular copyrighted works. Because the copyright holder's threat is based on the cost of litigation (and risk of public embarrassment — as this is a tactic used increasingly by the pron industry) more so than the damages a defendant would face in the event of a loss, innocent defendants have virtually as much incentive to settle as guilty ones do. That's not how things are supposed to work, and more and more judges are refusing to play along. Coupled with recent rulings in Florida, the copyright holders seem to be finding less and less favor with judges."

cancel ×

66 comments

April Fools? (3, Funny)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 2 years ago | (#39545817)

Guess, I'll wait until April 2nd before reading anything more on /.

Re:April Fools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39545839)

At least it was on a Sunday this year, and, therefore, a little less busy.

But, yeah, I totally agree. I can't tell with most of today's articles.

Fucking april fools.

Re:April Fools? (1)

djh2400 (1362925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39545907)

April Fools is the one day where I get to click the "Mark all as read" button in my RSS reader.

Re:April Fools? (1)

kelarius (947816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39545993)

Yeah this year they didn't spam out fake stories, everything today was real. Honestly I'm a bit disapointed.

Re:April Fools? (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546117)

Must be because Taco's gone; Slashdot's all corporate now.

Re:April Fools? (3, Insightful)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546189)

I can't figure out who is supposed to benefit from it. I hear plenty of bitching about it, much of which is my own muttering as I wade through the mostly stupid "jokes" plaguing virtually every website. Are there droves of silent users out there who just love spending the day playing "fact or fiction" on the internet?

Granted it's just one day a year, but that's not a justification. If millions of websites all switched to a pink wingdings font every June 7th for no other reason than someone else is doing it too, that it's only one day a year wouldn't explain who is supposed to be appreciating it.

I'm glad /. toned it down this year anyway.

Re:April Fools? (4, Informative)

bl968 (190792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546407)

Actually it looks legit. see the ruling file at http://ia600803.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.265453/gov.uscourts.ilnd.265453.23.0.pdf [archive.org] It's dated Friday...

Re:April Fools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39546565)

Hey, everyone knows the judiciary has a great sense of humor!

Re:April Fools? (4, Insightful)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546443)

Please tell me when its not "fact or fiction" day on the internet?

Re:April Fools? (1)

VocationalZero (1306233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549063)

You might be waiting for a while...

Re:April Fools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39546645)

People are attached to tradition. Why? Beats me.

Re:April Fools? (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546783)

The best April Fools stories are those that border between the outrageous and the plausible. I fell for one this year, usually I don't because a friend of mine has his birthday on March 31st but I had a good hangover and forgot. It got me to anger, then to rage, then to "damnit, got me" and was well played. The rest of the day is kind of a waste though. Actually what I found funniest was the reverse April Fools, our version of AP or Reuters called NTB sent out a press message listing the various jokes, except one of those news stories was real. So they had to send out a fairly embarrassing retraction correcting themselves. Then you have all the laughs at other people who did fall for something, not to mention the smugness of not falling for it. Overall lighten up a bit, the world needs one less than serious day a year.

Re:April Fools? (2)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 2 years ago | (#39548867)

Chill dude. It's call sense of humour.

I think it's a great way for media to speculate on what we'd wished could happen and let us examine our own reaction to these news.

Re:April Fools? (2)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546201)

Well, I guess judges do their best work at Sundays, so I would paint this as "You'll all get a clock in a tower in London if that isn't true"

Re:April Fools? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546589)

It may say 'published' on April 1st but if you RTFA it mentions 'Friday'.

An Helicopter for All (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39545833)

Some of you may have heard already that we are working on building an helicopter using the open source model. We already have an helmet design and have sourced components for building an horizontal plane for which an hydraulic valve can sit upon. We need your help to continue with this amazing project. Anybody is welcome to provide an hand but to ensure success we have a core team of people to lead the project. An handpicked core team is essential.

We were encouraged by the feedback we got from our previous plea to Slashdot and we would like to offer an humble thanks to all those responded.

One of the responses mentioned that we needed a “Jesus Nut” (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2759021&cid=39538663) . An hunt on the internet gave us lots of information but the Wikipedia page was too hard to understand. If someone could give us an hand designing an handcrafted Jesus Nut we would be grateful.

While we were doing an hunt for the Jesus Nut we noticed that the Wikipedia page also mentioned rotors. In the interests of a honest disclosure we do have to admit that we had not thought of rotors which is maybe why we did not know about the Jesus Nut. An helping hand with rotor design would be welcomed. As well we would like an explanation of what a rotor is, preferably as an help file.

Back to the design of an helmet. In the interests of keeping this project 100% open source we would like an helmet that is designed and made by us as well. Currently we are using an helmet that is off the shelf and this will clearly not do. We want an helmet like this: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/053HELMET_468x608.jpg. An hand building one would be great!!

The design of an hang glider to provide escape in the event that an horrible accident occurs is going forth at great speed and we have designed the major components and built a model from paper that appears to fly well. An hazard we did not think of is getting out of the cockpit onto the hang glider as you would have to let go of the helicopter controls. An harrier jet might be able to provide an additional pilot in the event of an hazard occurring but this is not currently within our project budget. A robotic hand that operates like an human hand might work better. If anyone has experience designing an human hand or an hand that can operate a joystick we would like to hear from you.

With things moving do fast we need to find an house to keep the helicopter in. If you can provide an house that would fit an helicopter in the garage please contact us. Alternatively an hanger would do. An house with an hanger would be even better.

If you wish to join an homebrew project that involves a software design as well as an hardware design please join the effort!

Please discuss.

Regards,

An Hacker

Re:An Helicopter for All (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546015)

A Helicopter, A Hacker, not An

Re:An Helicopter for All (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39546107)

An 'elicopter, an 'acker...

Re:An Helicopter for All (3, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546593)

An 'elicopter, an 'acker...

Just you wait 'enry 'iggins.

Re:An Helicopter for All (1)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546111)

And he's running back into the outfield looking around for the ball. He makes a final desperate grab and... whoosh... it goes sailing over his head.

consPiracy? (5, Funny)

constpointertoconst (1979236) | more than 2 years ago | (#39545841)

I see what you did there.

Re:consPiracy? (2)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546243)

I know right? Those prosecutors have been studying their LISP...

Sucked in... again (2)

dark grep (766587) | more than 2 years ago | (#39545915)

It's already April 2 hear, so alert mode for April Fools has been switched off. 2nd story I have been sucked in by. 2nd -1 for off topic too I guess.

Re:Sucked in... again (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546197)

Your hearing is in the future? How does that work?

Re:Sucked in... again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39547445)

Fuckin' magnets.

Re:Sucked in... again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39547679)

Your hearing is in the future? How does that work?

It's like the opposite of listening to an oldies station. You hear tomorrow's hits today. Then you get sued by RIAA because every time you listen to a future hit, they lose 3500 album sales.

Re:Sucked in... again (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546763)

Nice typo. :P

Re:Sucked in... again (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39548687)

Unless the US Court for Illinois started doing April fools jokes, on the 30th no less, this is not a joke. See the link at the bottom of the Ars Technica article to the judge's decision (someone also linked it higher up too.)

Innocent what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39545937)

They're in the same freaking torrent. Maybe it doesn't fit the legal definition of conspiracy but they sure as hell aren't innocent.

Re:Innocent what? (4, Informative)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39545951)

Innocent of conspiracy. That's pretty important for a lot of reasons, most of which are legal.

Re:Innocent what? (4, Informative)

Kirijini (214824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546641)

Actually, by "innocent", the summary is referring to defendants who have not downloaded the porn - that is, people who are actually innocent of copyright infringement.

The problem is that if the porn companies screwed up and have a bunch of wrong IP addresses in addition to correct ones (that is, people who did download the porn as well as people who didn't), the people at the end of the wrong IP addresses will still get a letter threatening a lawsuit in which they will be publicly accused of downloading "bareback college studs" (or whatever) unless they pay up two thousand dollars. Regardless of whether they're innocent, most people would rather pay up (and keep the whole thing secret) than mount an expensive legal defense.

Most federal judges are not impressed with this "settlement extortion" legal strategy, and aren't letting porn companies (and similar plaintiffs) get away with this on the cheap. What I mean by that is, the porn companies* are getting people's names and addresses, which they need to send the threatening letters and settlement demands, by suing thousands of defendants at the same time. Not only is this very questionable so far as the rules of civil procedure, they also only pay one filing fee even though they're essentially suing thousands of people. The courts would really prefer that the porn companies pay the $350 filing fee for each defendant they sue, because these massive lawsuits generate huge amounts of paper work, and clog up the system to the detriment of other lawsuits that are perhaps actually about obtaining justice rather than extorting settlements.

*there's reason to believe that the porn companies don't really care that much, and these massive lawsuits are instigated by a handful of lawyers who think they've found an easy way to hack the legal system and make a bunch of money. These lawyers do these suits on a contingency basis - that is, the porn companies aren't actually paying the lawyers to file the law suits; instead, they split whatever profits they get from settlements.

Re:Innocent what? (3, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546875)

Well, it is true they aren't exactly known for their accuracy in their accusations. Since they've been doing this they've accused lots of people that wouldn't know a P2P program if it came with it's own spokesmodel, a few network printers, a couple of people that don't own computers, a computer user who's computer runs an operating system that doesn't even have a version of the supposed program for it, someone that was verifiabley out of the country for the time period in question, and I believe I saw a report of an online webcam being targeted as well.

So of course they 'attack' a lot of innocent people, they're just stupid that way. (Especially since the courts have been letting them get away with it, and that most people can't afford to fight it in the first place.) Although having a conspiracy charge slapped on it would make it a lot worse for you whether or not you are guilt or innocent. It's kind of like being in front of a firing squad and being told they won't stop the execution unless either the governor calls in time (fat chance) or you pay them $3000 to conveniently forget they ever saw you (until the next time they target you).

As to the few that have taken them to court, it's not much better. They spend a lot more than the extortion money they would have otherwise paid, and don't even get to be officially declared innocent because the blackmailers... err... copyright holders drop the case if it looks like they will lose. Apparently that's done to try and avoid setting a precedent that can be used against them.

Of course, like you mentioned, there are lots of other reasons why various groups frown on this B.S., but until they do something drastic, or otherwise make it obviously non-profitable, the scammers will keep accusing people to garner filthy lucre.

Re:Innocent what? (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39547183)

Well, it is true they aren't exactly known for their accuracy in their accusations... and I believe I saw a report of an online webcam being targeted as well.

I believe the webcam was accused of unfair competition rather than copyright infringement ;-)

Re:Innocent what? (4, Insightful)

mounthood (993037) | more than 2 years ago | (#39548363)

Most federal judges are not impressed with this "settlement extortion" legal strategy, and aren't letting porn companies (and similar plaintiffs) get away with this on the cheap.

It's not the legal strategy that judges have a problem with -- it was allowed for years when the RIAA started doing it. It's only after the p0rn industry started using the same strategy that judges viewed it as extortion.

Now if we could just get some really obnoxious patent trolls, maybe we could get some legal bias against patents.

Re:Innocent what? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39548761)

The extortion part comes in when you are being sued for downloading "Anal Teen Nightmare" (IIRC that was the name of one of the movies involved in this or a similar suit). Most people don't like being accused of that, whether they are guilty or innocent. In other words, the accusation alone is enough to ruin peoples reputation, and therefore is actual extortion. On the other hand, the threat of being accused of downloading "Poker Face" is considerably less damaging to ones reputation (well, for most people anyways), and therefore is less clearly legal extortion. Still extortion because of the legal fees involved, but not the almost-blackmail status of being accused of downloading porn (and somewhat deviant porn, at that).

Re:Innocent what? (2)

mounthood (993037) | more than 2 years ago | (#39551645)

Extortion for money doesn't require shaming someone; the RIAA did extort people, it just wasn't called extortion until the judges were dealing with the p0rn industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion [wikipedia.org]

Re:Innocent what? (2, Insightful)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546329)

You have just the right attitude for law enforcement. Apply now, free donuts.

This is not news for nerds (-1, Troll)

w.p.richardson (218394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39545971)

this is not stuff that matters.

Re:This is not news for nerds (3, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546033)

How does this not matter considering it refers to legislation dealing with the cost common experience humans have with a PC today, the internet? Yeah I was gonna say porn since it is referenced, and likely the only thing to cause more addiction than middleschools obsession with Facebook, both the same thing in this context.

Not sure what your beef is- perhaps it wasn't important enough for you? Fine, but I'm pretty sure this isn't anything as narrow-audience even here as half the book reviews for things like a minor Moodle version bump or some obscure database system tips and tricks that somehow made frontpage right after the article mocking the antiquity of old media writing and how the new version is dropping in the next week and going to fix all of the awfully missteps which incidentally formed a major focus for the book reviewed.

Remember this is a site that has "Cloud" listed as prominent topic category so just be glad we aren't talking about that vapid empty term which is inadvertently cynically descriptive of the concept itself in the modern era.

Re:This is not news for nerds (1)

sempir (1916194) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549333)

porn, Facebook, both the same thing in this context.!!!

How dare you equate porn with Farcebook, and not give it a capital either!!! Porn is far more entertaining, and for those of us over 70, far more useful too!

Re:This is not news for nerds (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39546187)

I suspect that this is simply not news for w.p.richardson, who wants to whine about the lack of personalized censorship Slashdot is forcing upon him.
I feel for you big fella, gosh things are tough. At least you cried in public, instead of hiding in your bedroom.

Re:This is not news for nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39546339)

I suspect that this is simply not news for w.p.richardson, who wants to whine about the lack of personalized censorship Slashdot is forcing upon him.
I feel for you big fella, gosh things are tough. At least you cried in public, instead of hiding in your mother's basement.

FTFY

 

Re:This is not news for nerds (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546609)

this is not stuff that matters.

This is not my beautiful wife,
Letting the days go by...

Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (5, Interesting)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39545989)

Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (see wikipedia for more info fellow reader).

Criminalizing a group of loosely or totally unrelated individuals based on a particular form of sharing content (or speech) is just one step away from a thoughtcrime and is seen in the banning of the web, twitter, or similar by oppressive regimes, and shows a undeniable contempt for those basics terms and concepts that form the acronym P2P.

Person to person communication is inherent to all humans, and sought out even by those who are handicapped to the extreme. It is the basis of science, individual development, society, and anything else that didn't come from instict or perhaps indirect observation. If you live in a society that doesn't allow newpapers, a certain internet sharing site, or any other medium that allows honest expression then you need to run like hell and be glad that you did. This is testing the waters.

I remember when using P2P for legimitate uses during the late 90'- early 2000's being so disgusted that the judges at the time couldn't seem to fathom in their wildest dreams how this new means of exchange could possibly be anything other than 100% destructive "theft" oriented black-market oriented, when in reality a lot of early P2P really was centered around specialized information exchange that had a dynamic nature not offered by the web and only hinted at by services like Hotline and the others. Sure the smart people set up their own FTPs, but for many mediums and industries there was little to no expectation-especially at that time- that the person had the skills to do so. The PC was still not on every desktop, or even remotely required for many non-technologically inclined persons.

This dynamism was of course the same reason Napster and the rest were able to gain such rapid traction- it was so easy, and connective. Before web search got it right, and even still P2P allows personalization and selectivity of content that has never been matched. Those early days of fairly high penetration of modern-like P2P felt like having a personal mailing list but without the management, unlimited hosting, it has integrated search, didn't require much work, and didn't make you wanna move to antarctica in the way you felt after the first attempt to "share" via a dutifully built template based GeoCity's monstrosity.

But despite the damage done to legitimate P2P by the so-called Napster boom of early last decade I refuse to buy the "blame the tool" B.S. leveled at those site who tended toward unlicensed transfers. It was a shit argument than, and time has only proven even more how P2P really is the core of the internet even if it isn't always manifested purely at the protocol level. Love them or hate them, but sites that allow quick person to person communication like Flickr, Twitter, blogs, Facebook, and old stalwarts like email and various chat clients represent the biggest reason people are shifting time away from TV and DVD porn. Sure companies have perverted and manipulated this model- Facebook being perhaps the worst- But the spirit of sharing is so central to human communication and by extension the web that literal clusterfucking; as in clustering us by service or protocol, and then sending in the lawyers to fuck us based on that designation is just wrong. There is perhaps no force that threatens free speech more, than being grouped in and implicated by remote extension with an individual based on their theoretical possibility to commit a potential crime.

Re:Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (5, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546123)

Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex

Eeek! I thought having sex is P2V, or sometimes P2A or P2M, but the last two only before marriage...

Re:Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (3, Funny)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546507)

Okay, I guess P2A means Peer-To-Anyone and P2M means Peer-To-Many...but what does P2V stand for? Peer-To-Vehicle?

Re:Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39546559)

Okay, I guess P2A means Peer-To-Anyone and P2M means Peer-To-Many...but what does P2V stand for? Peer-To-Vehicle?

Peer-To-Void. Somtimes it feels like you are just "talking" to yourself.

Re:Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (2)

Bad Ad (729117) | more than 2 years ago | (#39547083)

Seriously?

Penis 2 Vagina
Penis 2 Ass
Penis 2 Mouth

Re:Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39547377)

whoosh

Re:Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39547581)

Or more to the point: Mornington Crescent.

Re:Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39547729)

P2H

Re:Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39546237)

Selling drugs is P2P ...

Sure, Pusher 2 Pothead.

but so is having sex

Right, Penis 2 Pussy...

Criminalizing a group of loosely or totally unrelated individuals based on a particular form of sharing content (or speech) is just one step away from a thoughtcrime

So you're in favor of Pusher 2 Pothead and Penis 2 Pussy (or Pussy 2 Pussy, Penis 2 Penis, lets be inclusive here) interactions between groups of people don't know each other or barely know each other. Is that basically what you're trying to say? I didn't really bother to read the whole post (it was really long).

Re:Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (3, Funny)

Maow (620678) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546709)

Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (see wikipedia for more info fellow reader).

Erm, I'm interested in what you say and would like to subsc... Never mind, got any, um, more illustrative links?

(ducks & runs...)

Re:Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39548943)

Selling drugs is P2P, but so is having sex (see wikipedia for more info fellow reader).

In the animal kingdom that's true. However, the loads of pollen on my car this week tell me that plants prefer multicast.

FTFY (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546115)

the copyright holders seem to be finding less and less favor with judges."

Curiously, all of those judges were replaced when exceptionally large political donations were made to every one of their opponents during the next election. -_- The last time a few judges got it in their head to go against the corporate agenda, they were declared "activist judges" and dealt a massive amount of media spin, quickly ending their careers. That phrase has since lost the spotlight, but the instigators of that media frenzy are still perfectly willing and able to do the same thing.

Re:FTFY (4, Informative)

Kirijini (214824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546297)

Federal judges are protected by article III of the Constitution, and cannot be removed from office except by impeachment. Many judges never really retire, either, they just become "senior" judges with reduced case loads. They are nominated for their offices by the president and confirmed by the senate.

They aren't free of corruption (see Justice Thomas, or more specifically, his wife), but the federal judiciary is remarkably free from corporate pressure, and it really is the closest thing the USA has to a bastion of liberty and freedom.

Re:FTFY (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546623)

There is one other way to remove a federal judge from office, but it's, er... 'frowned upon' by law enforcement. And 'polite' society.

Re:FTFY (1)

Kirijini (214824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546659)

What, you mean like when Jared Lee Loughner shot and killed Judge John Roll?

It's pretty tasteless to suggest that only "polite" people disapprove of the assassination of public servants.

Re:FTFY (0)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546683)

Oh noes! I have offended someone on teh intarwebs!

Lighten up, Francis.

Re:FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39546693)

Yeah man. As an impolite person, I'm highly offended by that remark.

Re:FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39548683)

What, you mean like when Jared Lee Loughner shot and killed Judge John Roll?

It's pretty tasteless to suggest that only "polite" people disapprove of the assassination of public servants.

An armed society is a 'polite' society .. quoth the Republican.

Re:FTFY (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39548045)

the federal judiciary is remarkably free from corporate pressure, and it really is the closest thing the USA has to a bastion of liberty and freedom.

Which is more sad than anything else.

Re:FTFY (2)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 2 years ago | (#39548405)

Are judges elected in the US, or just higher positions like attorney generals?

There's been some griping in Canada over recent "too soft on crime" rulings, and some idiots are saying judges should be elected. This is one of the most monumentally stupid things a democracy can do, as it's effectively mob justice. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not waste time every X years justifying their decisions to a legally-ignorant electorate too easily swayed by emotions.

MUAHAHAHAHA (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 2 years ago | (#39546225)

our plan is working perfectly.

Maybe... (2)

alex67500 (1609333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39548201)

"copyright holders seem to be finding less and less favor with judges."

Maybe the judge found his name in the list of infrigers... :-)

If we lose.... (1)

Yew2 (1560829) | more than 2 years ago | (#39552385)

We all send them a check for $3.17 right? Thats all I got when they conspired to rip me off for those degradable 20th century recording media they forced on us...
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...