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!

Judge Orders Verizon Subscriber Identities Sealed

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the destroy-all-copies dept.

Verizon 126

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of the mass 'John Doe' cases based on single BitTorrent downloads of films, Malibu Media v. Does 1-13, a pro se litigant made a motion to quash the subpoena. The Court granted a stay of the subpoena, pending its decision on the motion to quash. Unfortunately for John Doe, Verizon had turned over its subscribers' identities 5 days BEFORE the response was due, thus possibly mooting both the stay and the motion to quash. Fortunately for John Doe, the Judge wasn't too happy about this, ordered the information sealed, directed plaintiff's lawyers to destroy any copies, and ruled that they can't use the information unless and until the Court denies the motion to quash."

cancel ×

126 comments

Verizon, the company that brought us DNS-hijacking (4, Informative)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40073927)

What did you expect? Come on...

Re:Verizon, the company that brought us DNS-hijack (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074243)

Quit wigglin' your juicy ass in my face, you piece of fuck! I'll have to fuck it right off if you don't cease this foolishness!

Re:Verizon, the company that brought us DNS-hijack (0, Troll)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074257)

Be a man... don't get a hard one on (or in) my juicy ass. And come out the closet, anonymous non-hetero.

Re:Verizon, the company that brought us DNS-hijack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074351)

Hey, isn't hijacking considered terrorism nowadays? Maybe we can just ship the executive staff off to a nice resort in the carribean :)

Re:Verizon, the company that brought us DNS-hijack (2)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075369)

Doesn't count because:
A) Done by rich people
B) Done by a company

We should start holding the heads of companies liable for their crimes when they use the company as an instrument.

Re:Verizon, the company that brought us DNS-hijack (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40080359)

Maybe we can just ship the executive staff off to a nice resort in the carribean.

Too easy. I wonder what the Russians are doing with the Gulag Archipelago these days. Solzhenitsyn wrote that great book, yet no-one hears about it any more. Has that been decommisioned? Surely, there's room in Lubyanka these days?

A Siberian winter should wake them up. Or kill 'em; whatever.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40073949)

Why are these so-called "John Does" getting a free pass for what is effectively stealing?

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (4, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40073959)

Copying is not stealing, nothing is lost, as a matter of fact. things are duplicated. I for one, welcome my new Overlord 'thief' that duplicates my money! (and then there is this other little detail... they haven't been found guilty... (yet) )

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074051)

Actually duplicating money would cause its value to drop, thus making everyone who isn't duplicating a little bit poorer.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074079)

A common misconception. Since money isn't tied to anything physical, there is no reason that more of it need lower the value. The current value is already arbitrary. I will also point out that there are far more dollars in databases than we have currency, so we should be able to print quite a bit more without losing any real value at all; we would only be introducing a physical aspect to money that already exists.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (3, Informative)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074241)

A common misconception. Since money isn't tied to anything physical, there is no reason that more of it need lower the value. The current value is already arbitrary.

Wow, you've really skipped economics 101 haven't you...

The price of things is based on offer and demand. Suppose I offer to sell you a satsuma at $1 and you earn only $10 a day, I've priced it too high and you won't buy, so I'll lower my price until you and I agree that the price is okay for you and me (i.e. when you estimate the satsuma is worth whatever portion of your work I ask for it - your money, that is - and I estimate I can make a reasonable profit with your purchase).

Now suppose you photocopy a bunch of dollar bills: you come to be with $1000 in your pocket and buy my satsuma for $1 like it was nothing. What do you think I'm gonna do when I see you're so rich? I'll raise my price since I can make a bundle out of you and you don't care. So I'll sell my satsumas at, say, $20 a pop.

And if enough people photocopy dollar bills, everybody will rise their prices. Who's losing? Those who don't photocopy dollar bills. Suddenly, they can't afford my satsumas anymore. They've lost purchasing power. For them, their money has lost value.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (4, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074421)

Wow, you've really skipped economics 101 haven't you...

Actually, the problem is that it's likely he *did* take college economics. The bullshit Progressive/Keynesian fairy tales they teach the kids in schools and colleges these days is ridiculous, especially when it comes to economics. The last thing they want is for anyone to actually understand how they and future generations are being screwed.

Strat

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1, Informative)

smpoole7 (1467717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074761)

> Actually, the problem is that it's likely he *did* take college economics.

+25 Insightful, Informative and just plain "Yes." :)

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074911)

So he didn't take Economics 101 at a good college.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074971)

Actually, the problem is that it's likely he *did* take college economics. The bullshit Progressive/Keynesian fairy tales they teach the kids in schools and colleges these days is ridiculous, especially when it comes to economics

Strat

Agree I am currently demaning that they they teach Intelligent Economical Design for my children at their school.

Our opposition is the Spaghetti Monster Economy, but since we got all the loosers on the schoolboard in our conjugation, I feel we are quite confident to win a vote.

Our next plan is to vote against magnets those things just freak me out, black magic I tell you!

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074985)

As opposed to the laughable Laffer curve and the Supply side nut jobs that ran the economy off a cliff? There's nothing magicaly about Keynesian economics and it's not a fairy tale either. When nobody is spending money, somebody has to spent it or you never get anywhere.

As for future generations being screwed, when you compare the money spent by Keynes followers now with the much larger sum wasted on trickle down, I'll happily take Keynes, as at least it's done something positive for the economy, or have you forgotten what things were like before the stimulus?

If you don't believe in spontaneous wealth generation, then you sure as hell shouldn't like what the GOP keeps trying to dish up.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

Transkaren (1925482) | more than 2 years ago | (#40077303)

The Laffer Curve is absolutely a real thing. It's just that we're not at the peak yet; we should be raising, not lowering, taxes.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078383)

That is actually half the answer. When they started lower taxes, according to the curve that the Republicans modified (not the original one he proposed back in the Nixon-Ford days), taxes were just a bit too high. So they lowered them telling people that less taxes actually meant more money while chanting "lower taxes means more revenue." Eventually the chant became their slogan and next thing you know, they are using it as a justification to make taxes ZERO in some cases. Truth is, Republicans don't like talking about the Laffer curve anymore (and in their media actively attack it) because they know that under most of the curves that have been argued, they have long passed the peak.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (3, Informative)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078593)

All Taxes are regressive. The rich can always avoid some (most) taxes, while the poor cannot avoid any. The progressive liberals keep thinking that taxes on the wealthy hurt the wealthy, when they hurt those the wealthy employ.

Case in point, the "luxury" tax on new Yachts and the like. When the tax was engaged, the rich simply stopped buying those items, killing the industries targeted, and causing unemployment as companies laid off workers due to much lower demands for said Luxuries. The tax was quickly repealed when it diddn't raise anywhere near the amount of revenue it claimed, and the corresponding loss of revenue and unemployment benefits out weighed the revenue it did generate.

The problem is, the Laffer Curve is more than accurate, however we are just left guessing at where "maximum revenue" is generated. My thesis is that revenue is maxed out when people are willing to endure taxes for the things they want (not need), which is one of the reasons I'm fairly Libertarian on things like currently illicit pharmaceuticals. Legalize drugs, create jobs and industry in the process, tax (and regulate) the crap out of them, and use the revenue to fund government. At some point, the Laffer Curve kicks in, and people STOP doing drugs (good thing) and revenue starts to decline (see Cigarettes for example).

IF you do this for all products / services deemed "harmful" to society, but otherwise "victimless", such as Alcohol, Drugs, Porn and Prostitution, we'd have all the money to do all the things we want as a society. And taxes become "voluntary" for all, including the poor. You won't have to pay taxes if you don't want what is taxed.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (2)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079811)

As opposed to the laughable Laffer curve

The Laffer curve [wikipedia.org] is just a specific case of the mean value theorem [wikipedia.org] in Calculus, worded slightly differently. It is indisputably correct. The only question is if we're to the left or to the right of the maximum (or if the maximum lies at 100% taxation).

Unfortunately, because it's inconvenient for certain political ideologies, people have taken to disputing it for political reasons, not realizing they're simultaneously disputing Calculus when they do so.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079013)

Indeed, I did take economics (required undergrad general studies course) and it was mostly bullshit. You mention how retarded Keynesian theory is, the Keynes theory is plain laughable. Give a rich man money and he'll pocket it. Nobody hires out of altruism, they hire because they can sell more than they can produce. If they're producing more than they're selling, no amount of tax breaks is going to get them to hire anyone. Likewise, if he's selling more than he can produce, his taxes going up (likewise his competetitors) isn't going to have him laying off workers.

OTOH, give a poor or middle class man a tax break and he'll spend it, putting right back into the economy, raising sales for everyone, encouraging him to hire.

History has proven this. Clinton got Congress to give tax breaks to middle and low income people, and by the time he left office the economy was booming, unemployment was low, and the Federal budget was balanced.

Then Bush lowered taxes on the rich "to stimulate the economy" and left office with the worst economy since the Great Depression and the highest defecit in history (and two wars which was the cause of the Bush and now Obama defecits).

Economics is by no means a science. It's all smoke, mirrors, and trickery. Little of it is logical, and most is not only unproven but has been proven false -- yet they still tech the bullshit.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40080123)

Not to put this more into political debate territory, but didn't Bush also give out the tax rebates to people who were in lower and middle classes, and was criticized for it, while you are saying that when Clinton did it, it was good?

Also, I thought that Congress determined the tax system and the President just approves or vetoes?

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40080297)

I sure didn't get any tax breaks, when the Bush tax "cuts" went into effect, my taxes went up. My taxes did go down under Clinton.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

Yosho-sama (800703) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079991)

Basic supply/demand theory is entirely classical and neoclassical, based on the work of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, most definitely pre-Keynesian. Inflation due to money supply isn't a new concept.

After the conquest of South America, prices in Spain skyrocketed due to the influx of gold and silver into the economy. Proving that it happens with fiat currencies, gold-based currencies or any unit of measure that used to account for value, you plebeian.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074431)

What do you think I'm gonna do when I see you're so rich? I'll raise my price since I can make a bundle out of you and you don't care.

You could try not being a dick. How about you price your item based on it's cost to you and the profit you require to stay in business.
What this world needs is less ruthless, greedy people. Or people with better arguments.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074637)

You could try not being a dick.

You first.

How about you price your item based on it's cost to you and the profit you require to stay in business.

How about you mind your own fucking business? If some fool wants to pay $20 for a book of matches and is perfectly happy to pay it, why should the matchbook-seller turn it down? He's got kids & family to provide for as well.

What this world needs is less ruthless, greedy people.

It also needs unicorns to fly out of your ass. That's not gonna happen either.

That's why Collectivist ideologies like Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Crony-Capitalism (aka "Fascism-Lite" like the current US model) always has and always will fail. They all depend on people not behaving as eons of evolution have evolved human nature and humans to behave.

Or people with better arguments.

Still waiting on one from you.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 2 years ago | (#40077829)

That would create enormous scarcity. The cost of producing something has little to do with how much can be produced. If own a a small cafe that sells coffee and donuts and I price those items at the cost of production plus (say) 20%, I'll have a line out the door with people, and I'll never be able to make enough. After all, I have limited space for equipment to make donuts and coffee. I can't expand because there are stores on either side, and opening another cafe elsewhere won't solve the problem.

Now, this might not justify the prices charged by some businesses, particularly the prices for movies and music. However, there is an ultimate limit to how much the world can produce, charging whatever people are willing to pay helps avoid the world being covered with nothing but coffee shops. It means that we allocate the available space and labor more efficiently because demand is controlled.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078131)

How about you price your item based on it's cost to you and the profit you require to stay in business.

Won't work. If he's buying something from you for a buck, he's buying something from other people for a buck, too. Those other vendors are buying from your suppliers, increasing demand for the raw materials that you use to make your product. Some of those raw materials will be available in limited supply (either temporarily, such as food that takes time to grow, or permanently, such as mineral deposits). This means that either the price for those products must go up or you will have to buy supplies farther ahead so that when the market runs out of them and the price skyrockets because of desperation, you can continue to sell your goods.

And if he isn't buying extra products from your suppliers, he is buying extra products from you, and you are increasing the speed at which the raw materials are depleted.

Either way, your cost of doing business will go up, and you can either eat that cost difference as a loss or raise your prices.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (5, Informative)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074345)

A common misconception. Since money isn't tied to anything physical, there is no reason that more of it need lower the value. The current value is already arbitrary. I will also point out that there are far more dollars in databases than we have currency, so we should be able to print quite a bit more without losing any real value at all; we would only be introducing a physical aspect to money that already exists.

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. This is disinformation. It never ceases to amaze me how few people have any idea how money actually works. Of course, the government is happy to encourage and promote this lack of understanding and misinformation, as it works to their advantage in effectively stealing wealth from everyone with very few even understanding why they're effectively poorer.

Money is a representation of value, either in services/labor or in goods, regardless of whether the money is tied to something like gold or not, as gold is also a representation of value in goods or services/labor.

Back in the old West, a $20 gold coin would buy you one of the finest suits made. Today, that same amount of gold still buys a fine suit. It's only the amount in dollars that's changed. The comparative actual values have not changed. Back in the 1940s when dimes had a specific amount of silver, a gallon of gas cost two dimes, today those same dimes (with that amount of silver) still buys a gallon of gas. The relative values haven't changed, just the amount of money to equal that relatively static value has increased.

Printing more money dilutes the value of the money, effectively robbing everyone of the value they exchanged either in goods or services/labor for the money they hold. This is why gold prices have rocketed recently. Gold has not gained in value, rather, the dollar used to buy it has lost value.

The Fed engaging in "quantitative easing" (printing/creating more money from thin air) has caused the value of the money to drop dramatically, thus requiring more money to purchase the same value in goods and services/labor. This effectively robs everyone holding that currency of the value of the goods or services/labor they exchanged for that money.

It's theft on a really grand scale with everyone holding US dollars as the victims.

Every time the Fed does another "quantitative easing", your salary/pay is effectively cut.

Strat

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (2)

reve_etrange (2377702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074395)

I think your analysis is overly simplistic. It's true that inflation reduces the values of our savings and wages, but it also reduces the value of the debt we owe to others. That's how the country avoids paying off previously accrued debt: by inflating it into irrelevance.

I have no credit so it doesn't help me. But it's not true that inflation is only a loss for people who hold dollars, if they also owe.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1, Informative)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074519)

I think your analysis is overly simplistic. It's true that inflation reduces the values of our savings and wages, but it also reduces the value of the debt we owe to others. That's how the country avoids paying off previously accrued debt: by inflating it into irrelevance.

I have no credit so it doesn't help me. But it's not true that inflation is only a loss for people who hold dollars, if they also owe.

The problem here is that it only really works out to the advantage those holding absurdly-large and unrealistic (for the overwhelming majority of private citizens) amounts/ratios of debt to income in order to make up for the increases in the prices of everything else they purchase like food, energy, goods, and services. This does not work to the advantage of the vast majority of citizens.

Strat

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

reve_etrange (2377702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074633)

large amounts/ratios of debt to income

So, basically just the government.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074657)

large amounts/ratios of debt to income

So, basically just the government.

Yeah, pretty much.

Strat

Not quite - investments (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075415)

The problem here is that it only really works out to the advantage those holding absurdly-large and unrealistic (for the overwhelming majority of private citizens) amounts/ratios of debt to income...

Not entirely true. For a start it is an advantage to anyone with a mortgage on their house - so while a majority might not be affected I'd drop the "overwhelming" part. However inflation has one other "good" effect - it makes people spend and invest. The continuous drop in value means that, if you have a large amount of cash, you have a very strong motivation to either spend it on what you need or invest it in the economy somehow in order to preserve its value. This investment money is where businesses get funds to grow, expand and employ more people.

Re:Not quite - investments (0)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078701)

Not entirely true. For a start it is an advantage to anyone with a mortgage on their house

Only if the mortgage is enormous, *and* purchases of goods & services is extremely minimal. Otherwise, the increased cost of goods & services outweighs any savings on the mortgage.

Like, if you're a Slashdotter who has a large mortgage, yet still lives in his mom's basement.

The continuous drop in value means that, if you have a large amount of cash, you have a very strong motivation to either spend it on what you need or invest it in the economy somehow in order to preserve its value.

Or, do what many have done: Buy gold/silver.

Strat

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (2)

Mullen (14656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074589)

Printing more money dilutes the value of the money, effectively robbing everyone of the value they exchanged either in goods or services/labor for the money they hold. This is why gold prices have rocketed recently. Gold has not gained in value, rather, the dollar used to buy it has lost value.

The Fed engaging in "quantitative easing" (printing/creating more money from thin air) has caused the value of the money to drop dramatically, thus requiring more money to purchase the same value in goods and services/labor. This effectively robs everyone holding that currency of the value of the goods or services/labor they exchanged for that money.

It's theft on a really grand scale with everyone holding US dollars as the victims.

Every time the Fed does another "quantitative easing", your salary/pay is effectively cut.

Strat

You Ron Paul'ers types need to pay attention to the inflation charts. Even with "Quantitative Easing", inflation has been holding steady and staying low the last few years. Should have it gone up? By all accounts, yes, but it did not.

Plus, there should always be a little inflation, so asking for none or complaining there is any, shows lack econ understanding.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074685)

Plus, there should always be a little inflation, so asking for none or complaining there is any, shows lack econ understanding.

That's one part of Econ that I never did understand... WHY should there always be a little inflation? What possible good could there be for my daily gallon of Red Bull to cost an extra 20 cents this year than it did last year? (Higher prices provide incentive to cut back, but that's a health benefit not an economic benefit.)

Deflation makes sense - less money moving around, vendors make less, so they have less to pay in wages. The whole thing spirals down. But where's the problem with no inflation?

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (4, Informative)

dj245 (732906) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074905)

That's one part of Econ that I never did understand... WHY should there always be a little inflation? What possible good could there be for my daily gallon of Red Bull to cost an extra 20 cents this year than it did last year? (Higher prices provide incentive to cut back, but that's a health benefit not an economic benefit.) Deflation makes sense - less money moving around, vendors make less, so they have less to pay in wages. The whole thing spirals down. But where's the problem with no inflation?

In theory, there is no problem with 0 inflation. The problem is attaining it. The Federal Reserve has powers, but unlike the powers of congress and the president and the supreme court, it takes a long time to see the affect of any policy they put in place. The economy is a supertanker and the Fed is a little bow thruster. It is difficult to know precisely what effect Fed policies will have, and how long it will take to get there.

That being said, we need a small amount of inflation in order to keep up with other countries. Most other counties subscribe to the "small amount of inflation" theory. If we had 0 inflation, prices overseas would rise (purchasing power would decrease) but our currency would stay the same (ie, a very strong dollar). This would be great for American tourists traveling abroad, but the companies in the US that make things would have a hard time selling things overseas. Most Japanese companies that export are having a difficult time with this. The Yen was roughly 110 Yen/Dollar about 4 years ago and now it hovers around 80 Yen/Dollar. This is a substantial difference and since most big Japanese companies source things and do machining inside Japan (their costs are mostly fixed to the Yen) some are really struggling to sell abroad.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

pegasustonans (589396) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075707)

In theory, there is no problem with 0 inflation. The problem is attaining it.

I always thought a simple solution would be to tie currency valuation to sexual services. That way, when inflation goes through the roof, we're all already fucked.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40078937)

I think the problem with inflation is that it has been tied to growth. There always has to be a small amount of growth, but unless you see them as the same thing, that does not mean that there has to be inflation. The problem you alluded to is that each country needs growth to keep up with the others, but not inflation.

Growth is inevitable because we have a finite amount of resources and, over time, we find better and better ways to utilize them over time. Therefore, each resource is worth more every day because you can do more with it and each product is worth less because you can get more with less resources now than you could then. Therefore, over time the total amount of product increases and the economy grows.

Inflation is now used as a proxy for growth of product: as more product is introduced into the economy per resource, the value of that product falls. However, there is not enough money to represent all the product, so you need more money to represent them and the value of the money falls. Additionally, to those on Wall Street, money is the product, so it actually loses value over time as more appear each time unit. Therefore, people expect inflation over time.

The interesting alternative is when it is a proxy for the efficiency of resources. In those cases, money represents how many products you can make out of a resource. This makes the value of the money increase over time and you can buy more with each. Guess which one benefits the rich and which benefits the poor and I think you will see why we have that system. Final thought, if money were not a proxy for growth of product or efficiency of resources it would remain constant.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#40077211)

Basically, inflation and deflation happen at a macroeconomic level in ways that aren't fully understood. If there wasn't any "intentional" inflation, the value of money would be sometimes inflating, and sometimes deflating.

Say you live in this world. You take out a 20-year mortgage on your house, or a 3-year loan on a car or something. Stuff we'd like to encourage; people loaning money put it to better use than leaving it under the mattress and people being loaned money can control the timings of their purchases better.

So you have this loan or mortgage, and are making payments. But the currency deflates, over a few years, and although everybody knows it's eventually going back up, it'll take a while.

Oops. Your payments are a fixed number of dollars, and suddenly those dollars cost you a lot more, since your wages have been cut in response to deflation. Theoretically, at least, you're earning the same value, but the numbers are off. This has the effect of making your payments that much more expensive.

It's not just theory. Farmers in the late 1800s were inclined to take out loans to buy new fancy equipment like tractors that they knew would make them more money, well more than needed to pay off the loan, but they were petrified that deflation would make them end up owing a lot more than they'd planned on. If inflation (its existence, not necessarily the rate) is a constant, it's no big deal, it just gets worked into the interest and everybody understands it. But it keeps a borrower from owing more than they know about up-front, which makes people more confident in borrowing, which makes the economy move.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074697)

You Ron Paul'ers types

Who?

Even with "Quantitative Easing", inflation has been holding steady

I guess the fact that they changed the way the official inflation numbers are calculated precisely to hide the true inflation rate escaped your notice?

shows lack econ understanding.

Yes, your post demonstrates that in spades. Either that, or extreme partisanship.

Strat

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074827)

Your understanding of economics is childish. Inflation is a part of a healthy economy, deal with it. I hate how partisan hacks scare the plebs with pseudo-economic crap like this.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078757)

I hate how partisan hacks scare the plebs with pseudo-economic crap like this.

Well, stop doing it. Hack.

Strat

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078187)

Should have it gone up? By all accounts, yes, but it did not.

Inflation requires not only the devaluation of money, but also a lack of hoarding. It isn't the quantity of money, but rather the quantity of money in active use that determines whether inflation or deflation occur. If quantitative easing injects money into a normally functioning economy, it creates inflation. If quantitative easing injects money into a collapsing economy at a rate equal to the rate at which people are pulling their money out of the economy and hoarding it under their mattresses, it creates no inflation. If it injects money at a lower rate, deflation occurs in spite of the quantitative easing.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40077717)

That is great... However this argument is often used by people who want us to go back to the gold standard or are interested in selling gold.

That day is gone. Banking and the stock market are way more complicated today then it was 150 years ago and money is more fluid.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079699)

Back in the 1940s when dimes had a specific amount of silver, a gallon of gas cost two dimes, today those same dimes (with that amount of silver) still buys a gallon of gas.

Not to take away from your excellent comment, but gasoline was more like a dime a gallon in the '40s according to everyone I've known who was alive then. The lowest I ever paid for a gallon of gasoline was seventeen cents, around 1970 (there was a gas war). Even then, the normal price was about 25-30 cents. thirty years later the price quadrupled (I was paying $1.05 in 2000), six years later it had nearly quintupled and has gone down by a third since then.

Printing more money dilutes the value of the money, effectively robbing everyone of the value they exchanged either in goods or services/labor for the money they hold.

That's why we had the rampant inflation in the '70s. Thankfully (for the 1%ers anyway), Nixon instituted wage/price controls that allowed the businessman to get richer by selling more goods via export to counties that hadn't impoverised themselves with foolishg wars, while normal people saw their buying power decline. The '70s inflation is what paid for the VietNam war. I'd prefer they'd taxed those who benefitted forom that war to pay for it, rather than shielding them from the cost.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

fineghal (989689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40080311)

The Fed engaging in "quantitative easing" (printing/creating more money from thin air) has caused the value of the money to drop dramatically, thus requiring more money to purchase the same value in goods and services/labor. This effectively robs everyone holding that currency of the value of the goods or services/labor they exchanged for that money.

It's theft on a really grand scale with everyone holding US dollars as the victims.

Every time the Fed does another "quantitative easing", your salary/pay is effectively cut.

Strat

The argument that the value of money is dropping is just false. I even took the time to make a graph!

A graph illustrating my point. [stlouisfed.org]

The graph begins in January of 2000 and runs until the present. All of the measures are indexed to Jan. 2000 as well and graphed as a monthly average. The dark bars indicate recessions. For those of you who are unaware, using an index makes it easier to compare different things over time. So if the index for the exchange rate is 100 in 2000, and 110 in 2001 then the exchange rate has increased by 10 percent compared to the value in 2000. Essentially, just think of the index as a percentage.

So now to let us look at all the shiny lines. The bottom most black line is the exchange rate, which is the value of the US dollar compared to other currencies. If this index is higher then the US dollar has gotten stronger and can buy more stuff abroad. If the index is lower that means the US dollar buys less stuff abroad.

Next is the dashed "Personal Consumption Expenditure" line. This is essentially a measure of inflation. And before anyone complains - yes this version contains food and energy. The differences between the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the PCE are academic but they're pretty similar.

Next up is the red line M2. M2 is broadly speaking the amount of money in circulation. Savings accounts, Checking accounts, currency and a few other things are lumped in here.

And finally the green line which is the Monetary Base(MB). This line is what people are talking about when they say quantitative easing. The Fed began quantitative easing in November of 2008, right where you see the Monetary Base start to spike. Policy tweaks since then are also reflected.

If in fact the value of money is decreasing due to QE as you suggest then one would expect to see one or more of the following things: A decrease in the value of money might be reflected by a rise in inflation. Instead you see inflation actually falling slightly where the PCE and MB intersect. If the value of money were truly decreasing by some method other than inflation, then one would think that other individuals and countries would notice. Once they do notice the fall in the value of the dollar, you'd expect to see the exchange rate fall, since it has less worth than other currencies. Instead you see a slight increase in the value of the dollar, followed by a move back to an index of around 80 as has been the case since 2007.

In short, if what you say is true we would expect some response in the graph.Given that massive spike in MB I'd expect a large one. But none of those variables even hints at the reaction to QE that you suggest has occurred.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

murder_face (2574275) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075099)

From what I still remember of my 4th grade social studies the dollar is supposed to be tied to something physical...... "Because gold and silver in the open marketplace vary independently, the production of coins of full intrinsic worth under any ratio will nearly always result in the melting of either all silver coins or all gold coins. In the early 19th century, gold rose in relation to silver, resulting in the removal from commerce of nearly all gold coins, and their subsequent melting. Therefore, in 1834, the 15:1 ratio of silver to gold was changed to a 16:1 ratio by reducing the weight of the nation's gold coinage. This created a new U.S. dollar that was backed by 1.50 g (23.22 grains) of gold. However, the previous dollar had been represented by 1.60 g (24.75 grains) of gold. The result of this revaluation, which was the first-ever devaluation of the U.S. dollar, was that the value in gold of the dollar was reduced by 6%. Moreover, for a time, both gold and silver coins were useful in commerce."

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074441)

So building luxurity cars is stealing because it decreases the value of everone else's luxurity car?

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075019)

And duplicating a good causes its perceived value and thus market value to drop.

Its a good analogy, actually.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075771)

Actually duplicating a song/movie/etc would cause its value to drop, thus making everyone who isn't duplicating a little less wealthy. If it was impossible to copy music files do you really think they'd be selling songs for 99c?

And more seriously, your "everyone" is too broad. People who owe more money than they have (which is almost everyone with a mortgage on their home) will be made richer by the value of money being reduced.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40079371)

That is the goal.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (5, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074105)

Copying is not stealing

Indeed, if it were then there would have been no need for copyright or infringement thereof as formal and separate concepts in the law because the property laws would have covered it. The fact that "copyright" does NOT fall under property law and that the "promotion of the progress of useful arts and sciences" is mentioned specifically and separately in the US Constitution, apart from any language concerning property, underscores their separateness and distinctness. The term "intellectual property" was invented and promoted by those whose interests were served by erroneously conflating the concepts of property and copyright or patent law. Indeed, the term "intellectual property" ought not to be used when referring to these matters because it injects bias and error into any discussion of patent or copyright.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075079)

Bullshit.

Copyright governs the right to distribute, not the right to own. The copyright holder can distribute, others can't. Copying is still not stealing, just like speeding is not stealing.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075769)

Idiot. That was his argument.

Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (1)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078021)

Lawls.

So what you're saying here... (5, Insightful)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 2 years ago | (#40073961)

Basically what we've got is Verizon saying, "Oh goodie, we're so eager to ignore our user's privacy that we're going to jump right on mailing out their personal information to any third party who might be interested." Yeah, yeah, they have a court order, and obviously you have to comply with that, but you certainly don't have to go and do it early.

Ya, amazingly retarded (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074069)

But ISPs do shit like that all the time. If they get a subpoena for your info in a "John Doe" form what they are supposed to do is notify you so you can fight it, if you wish. While filing a "John Doe" suit is a common and valid legal strategy when you are going after someone but lack the ability to identify them directly yet, that doesn't mean it is automatic. It is also used as a fishing expedition, as seen in these cases, and in those cases courts may quash it.

Hence, your ISP tells you, and then if it isn't quashed (because you don't contest it or because a judge decides it is fine), they hand over the info.

The problem is many ISPs just don't give a fuck about their customers because they know they lack options.

Re:Ya, amazingly retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074329)

And you'll probably find that judges get increasingly cranky about that sort of thing as it shows a certain lack of respect for them. And they then have to deal with the consequences and figure out how to rule.

Judges tend to be nice enough when shown due respect, but I'm a bit surprised that Verizon wasn't slapped for contempt of court seeing as that's effectively what they've done.

Re:Ya, amazingly retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074449)

People can be put in contempt of court, not companies.

Re:Ya, amazingly retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074709)

Yet companies seem to have same rights as people, even when it comes to voting with their $$$.

Re:Ya, amazingly retarded (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075251)

You forget yourself, citizen. Corporations are undead and almighty. They are, however, a bit more tangible than sky fairies.

Re:Ya, amazingly retarded (0)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076509)

They are, however, a bit more tangible than sky fairies.

Offtopic and flamebait.

Re:Ya, amazingly retarded (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076865)

My apologies--my attempt at humor apparently failed.

Re:Ya, amazingly retarded (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40080743)

People can be put in contempt of court, not companies.

That's why companies come with boards of directors. The CEO, or chairman of the board, or CTO should suffice nicely. Of course, the corporate lawyers ought to be on the hook too since they're advising the board.

Popcorn time.

Deadline (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075561)

And you'll probably find that judges get increasingly cranky about that sort of thing as it shows a certain lack of respect for them.

Really? I thought court orders gave deadlines by which something had to be done not "it must be done on this day". Complying quickly with an order is a sign of respect rather than dragging your heels until the last possible minute. Still this is the law so judges can be arbitrary and unreasonable on a whim and common sense rarely seems to apply!

Re:Ya, amazingly retarded (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074885)

The problem is many ISPs just don't give a fuck about their customers because they know they lack options.

This is pretty much all the answer anyone needs when trying to understand the behavior of any Telecom in this country. Somewhere along the lines customers (much like employees) stopped being considered assets and started being considered liabilities.

Re:Ya, amazingly retarded (2)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40077837)

But ISPs do shit like that all the time. If they get a subpoena for your info in a "John Doe" form what they are supposed to do is notify you so you can fight it, if you wish. While filing a "John Doe" suit is a common and valid legal strategy when you are going after someone but lack the ability to identify them directly yet, that doesn't mean it is automatic. It is also used as a fishing expedition, as seen in these cases, and in those cases courts may quash it. Hence, your ISP tells you, and then if it isn't quashed (because you don't contest it or because a judge decides it is fine), they hand over the info.

In this case Verizon undoubtedly did notify the John Does that it would turn over the information on May 12th. The John Doe quite properly made the motion to quash well in advance of that date, back in April. Verizon had absolutely no business turning over the documents on May 7th. If I were the judge, I would be calling Verizon in on the carpet.

Re:Ya, amazingly retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40079597)

Corporations also know that most of their customers just don't give a damn.

Re:So what you're saying here... (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075833)

Basically what we've got is Verizon saying, "Oh goodie, we're so eager to ignore our user's privacy that we're going to jump right on mailing out their personal information to any third party who might be interested." Yeah, yeah, they have a court order, and obviously you have to comply with that, but you certainly don't have to go and do it early.

...particularly when you know there's a motion to quash pending

Re:So what you're saying here... (1)

sudonymous (2585501) | more than 2 years ago | (#40077505)

Perhaps you could shed a little more light on things.

The average person sees a deadline as something you don't want to miss, but can be early on. So the typical response here is "Verizon was ordered to do by the 12th, they did 5 days early, what's the problem?".

Now, I've done a little digging around, and apparently the defendant normally has the right to submit a motion for the subpoena to be modified or quashed, if their motion is submitted prior to the returnable date of the subpoena. So how exactly does this work? Is there an unspoken, unwritten rule that you aren't supposed to deliver documents ordered by a subpoena prior to the subpoena's returnable date, to allow for it to be contested?

And then the motion to quash was filed by a pro se litigant - not by Verizon. The subpoena ordered Verizon to provide the data and Verizon happily complied. So where did this John Doe pro se litigant come from? And why were they able to file a motion to quash? Was the John Doe implicated prior to the information being handed over? or after? Do we know if Verizon knew of the motion to quash? Do we know if Verizon knew that the pro se litigant even existed and had the right to file a motion to quash?

I think I had more questions, but I've forgotten them now...

Re:So what you're saying here... (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40080787)

Perhaps you could shed a little more light on things. The average person sees a deadline as something you don't want to miss, but can be early on. So the typical response here is "Verizon was ordered to do by the 12th, they did 5 days early, what's the problem?". Now, I've done a little digging around, and apparently the defendant normally has the right to submit a motion for the subpoena to be modified or quashed, if their motion is submitted prior to the returnable date of the subpoena. So how exactly does this work? Is there an unspoken, unwritten rule that you aren't supposed to deliver documents ordered by a subpoena prior to the subpoena's returnable date, to allow for it to be contested?

Certainly in this case yes, where (a) the information is private confidential information of the subscriber, (b) Verizon has notified the subscriber that the information will be turned over on May 12th in the absence of a motion to quash, and (c) there is a pending motion to quash.

And then the motion to quash was filed by a pro se litigant - not by Verizon. The subpoena ordered Verizon to provide the data and Verizon happily complied. So where did this John Doe pro se litigant come from?

He or she is one of the John Does. He was notified by Verizon of the subpoena, and of his right to make a motion to quash, which he did, in this case, exercise.

And why were they able to file a motion to quash?

Why not?

Was the John Doe implicated prior to the information being handed over? or after?

Prior to the information being turned over, he was notified by Verizon that it would be turned over on May 12th unless he filed a motion to quash.

Do we know if Verizon knew of the motion to quash?

I don't know for sure if Verizon knew, but it is hard to imagine any set of circumstances under which it did not know. If it did not know, then plaintiff's counsel acted in an extremely inappropriate manner. But it is much more likely that Verizon did know.

Do we know if Verizon knew that the pro se litigant even existed and had the right to file a motion to quash?

Yes it absolutely knew that. It sent him or her a letter telling him or her that it would reveal his or her identity in response to the subpoena on May 12th.

uhhh (1)

DSS11Q13 (1853164) | more than 2 years ago | (#40073977)

can someone translate story to Engrish prease?

Re:uhhh (5, Informative)

MindPhlux (304416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40073983)

here you go :

"In one of the mass 'John Doe' cases based on single BitTorrent downloads of films, Malibu Media v. Does 1-13, a pro se litigant made a motion to quash the subpoena. The Court granted a stay of the subpoena, pending its decision on the motion to quash. Unfortunately for John Doe, Verizon had turned over its subscribers' identities 5 days BEFORE the response was due, thus possibly mooting both the stay and the motion to quash. Fortunately for John Doe, the Judge wasn't too happy about this, ordered the information sealed, directed plaintiff's lawyers to destroy any copies, and ruled that they can't use the information unless and until the Court denies the motion to quash."

Re:uhhh (5, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074213)

I think it's something like this:

Malibu Media: "These addresses belong to the people who pirated our stuff. We demand their identities!"

The Judge: "Not so fast! I still have to check if you are entitled to this information."

Verizon, nonetheless: "Here, have their identities."

The Judge: "Fuck, are you deaf or just stupid? I said they can't have this information yet! Delete that shit right now or I'll open a can of legal whoopass on you."

I said they can't have this information yet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074699)

Bingo

Re:uhhh (1)

worf_mo (193770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074807)

Thank you for this concise translation! Why can't journalists write more down-to-earth like this? Makes things unequivocal und is certainly much closer to reality.

Re:uhhh (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074925)

Why can't journalists write more down-to-earth like this?

That's why I like reading Matt Taibbi's columns at Rolling Stone. He's the only person I've ever heard discussing technicalities around the financial crash of '08 in a manner that a normal, reasonably educated person could understand, and that's saying something, considering many of the matters being discusses are deliberately obfuscated in the financial world in order to hide the games they're playing.

Re:uhhh (1)

worf_mo (193770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075095)

I just looked up Matt Taibbi's column, and he was actually able to describe Naked Short Selling in a way that I could understand (and find engaging). I'll make sure to read more of his articles, thanks.

Re:uhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075187)

He also makes up stuff. Make sure you fact check.

Re:uhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075529)

Says an AC.

Let me guess you didnt like something he wrote.
Perhaps an example of "made up stuff" ?

Re:uhhh (2)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075925)

I think it's something like this:
Malibu Media: "These addresses belong to the people who pirated our stuff. We demand their identities!"
The Judge: "Not so fast! I still have to check if you are entitled to this information."
Verizon, nonetheless: "Here, have their identities."
The Judge: "Fuck, are you deaf or just stupid? I said they can't have this information yet! Delete that shit right now or I'll open a can of legal whoopass on you."

Well said.

Re:uhhh (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078219)

The order is wrong. Verizon provided the identities before the judge ever entered an order on the subpoena. Definitely bad form to provide the information with a motion to quash pending, though I don't know if there's anything per se unlawful about it.

Translation to Engrish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074555)

"In one of mass 'John Doe' case based on singre BitTollent firm downroads, Maribu Media v. Does 1-13, plo se ritigant made subpoena quash motion. Coult glanted subpoena stay, pending quash motion decision. Unfoltunatery fol John Doe, Velizon turned over subsclibels' identities 5 days BEFORE response dued, thus possibry mooting both stay and quash motion. Fortune for John Doe, Judge was no happy about this, oldeled information seared, dilected praintiff's rawyels destloy any copies, and lured they can't use infolmation unress and UNTIR the Coult denies quash motion."

Re:Transration to Engrish (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40077753)

Your response was hysterical. Unfortunately, it seems that the people with mod points didn't read carefully. Sorry about that. Whoever you are, I got it :) You should have been modded "+5, Funny". Instead you're at "-1". Bummer.

wooooo! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074077)

A bunch of NERDS have LAUNCHED A ROCKET into orbit. STOP. EVERYTHING IS WONDERFUL. STOP. ETC. no really law is interesting, too.

Re:wooooo! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074603)

Whoever modded this down needs to turn in their geek card. Now.

oh, oh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40074875)

Just remember every second TV-police drama. Now they 'know' who they want, they just happen to collect more evidence that proves that person guilty. It looked righteous on television. It's not so righteous in a civil action.

oh the hypocrisy (3, Insightful)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074965)

Someone was (accused of) making a bunch of copies of something, without permission.

The accuser's lackey hands over information, before the Court decides if it's appropriate to enter it into evidence. The Court decides it isn't (yet) appropriate, and orders all copies of the evidence destroyed.

IOW, the accuser is now accused of making a bunch of copies of something, without permission. They just got a taste of their own medicine, at the hands of an unhappy judge.

Re:oh the hypocrisy (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075977)

Someone was (accused of) making a bunch of copies of something, without permission.

Actually just a single copy of a single low budget movie

The accuser's lackey hands over information, before the Court decides if it's appropriate to enter it into evidence.

... if it's appropriate to turn it over

The Court decides it isn't (yet) appropriate, and orders all copies of the evidence destroyed.
IOW, the accuser is now accused of making a bunch of copies of something, without permission. They just got a taste of their own medicine, at the hands of an unhappy judge.

Time frame to comply (0)

realsilly (186931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075111)

Verizon had a window of time for which to comply with a request. They turned over information early, but it was a request that the judge was aware was made, so I have to ask, why should he be mad or upset? In this case a corporation complied with a request and didn't cause a drawn out battle. The judge had ample opportunity to note his concerns up front and order Verizon to compile the info, but not to release it. He waited until just after Verizon complied.

I don't agree with Verizon's decision to hand private information over so quickly, but nor do I feel that those who are being prosecuted for illegal downloads should be protected or get a free pass.

There must be some reasonably strong evidence against the John Doe's for Verizon to comply so quickly, and if there are any legal ramification that Verizon may face, why should a business take a hit for alleged illegal activities? Answer, they shouldn't. If there is nothing that is deemed private on the internet, then why is access to it considered private also? Privacy laws need to be more clearly defined and unanimously throughout our country, so that we don't have so many legal arguments nullifying one judgment or another.

If these John Doe's really are performing illegal activities, then I agree they need to be prosecuted.

I only wish this much effort was placed on catching other types of thieves that use the internet as their tool of theft, such as stealing credit card info or identities or other stuff.

Re:Time frame to comply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40076599)

I was under the impression that we all knew that IP addresses mean shit when trying to identify a person. Guess not, since people like you are very willing to have defendants brought into suits that they have nothing to do with. golf clap

Re:Time frame to comply (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40080831)

I was under the impression that we all knew that IP addresses mean shit when trying to identify a person....

Most of us do know that, but plaintiff's lawyers are hoping that the judges are among those who don't know.

Re:Time frame to comply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40077659)

What the summary left out was that the prosecutors got the information and then the order to stay the subpoena, but they waited 10 days before they asked if they could still use the information they had gotten. The judge isn't mad at Verizon and from the order doesn't seem to have an issue with how they responded to the order. The issue is the prosecutors played dumb so they could hold on to information instead of telling the judge they had it. And then going to the judge and saying 'We know you are going to decide if we can have this information, but since we already have it you might as well let us use it, right?'.

Re:Time frame to comply (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#40079907)

"In this case a corporation complied with a request and didn't cause a drawn out battle"

There was already a battle; all Verizon did was complicate it.

Wait, what... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075261)

You're saying that Verizon actually got something done before the deadline?

huh? (1)

tommy8 (2434564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40078893)

If they were only downloading and not sharing how did they get caught?

Re:huh? (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40080807)

If they were only downloading and not sharing how did they get caught?

It's based on a single BitTorrent download. I don't know the technology by which they claim to have identified the account.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...