×

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!

Copyright Trolls Order Wordpress To Disclose Critics' IP Addresses

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the we-want-a-list-of-everyone-who-has-looked-at-this-poster dept.

The Internet 119

TrueSatan writes "Notorious copyright troll Prenda Law has sent a subpoena to WordPress attempting to force the disclosure of all IP addresses related to two WordPress-hosted sites that specialize in monitoring and encouraging action against copyright trolling. The sites in question are fightcopyrighttrolls.com and dietrolldie.com. These sites state their aims as: 'To keep the public and fellow victims informed and to ensure that through activism, trolls make as little money as possible.' These are goals which almost anyone (bar a copyright troll, or lawyer acting for one) might well applaud. Prenda Law's demand is not for a subset of addresses that might have posted in a manner that could be construed as legally defamatory but for all IP addresses that have accessed these sites, irrespective of the use made of them. Prenda Law has filed three defamation lawsuits already against the individuals who run Fightcopyrighttrolls, and one has been dismissed (PDF). Dietrolldie released the following warning: 'As there is a possibility that a release could occur, the public IP address (date/time stamp) could fall into the hands of Prenda. I would expect that they would then try to cross-reference the IP address with their list of alleged BitTorrent infringement IP addresses ... If you have ever gone to this site or Fightcopyrighttrolls.com since 1 January 2011, you may want to contact WordPress. Tell them you want them to refuse this overly broad request and at least wait until the issue of the case being moved to the Federal court is answered before releasing any information.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

119 comments

How about... (5, Interesting)

Beorytis (1014777) | about a year ago | (#43119765)

...even if you've never visited those sites, contact WordPress and tell them you want them to refuse.

Re:How about... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119821)

How about sending a Motion To Quash the subpoena to the court. Imagine if every reader of these blogs did that? The court would receive thousands, maybe tens of thousands of motions - that's how you send a message.

Re:How about... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120255)

How about someobody go postal on their asses, go into their building with a few AR-15s, shoot everybody and burn the fucking building to the ground?

Nah, that's too good for them.

Re:How about... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120885)

You know, for the first time I can actually see why gun control might be a bad thing ;)

Just tell Obama (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year ago | (#43121589)

to order a drone strike on Prenda Law and drop a couple of Hellfires. Do it when the owner and key lackeys are present.

I'm against drone strikes in general but I'll make an exception in this case.

Re:How about... (5, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43120147)

I think they should comply.

Dear Prenda Law,
Our records indicate that the IP address range of 0.0.0.0/0 (and ::/0 for IPv6) covers all hosts which have ever connected to any Wordpress site.
Sincerely, Wordpress.

Re:How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120935)

I expected someone would say that Wordpress should comply with a list of all possible IP addresses, but while your post starts out sounding like you are that someone, you appear to only list a single address.

Am I just missing a joke here?

Re:How about... (3, Informative)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43121079)

Those aren't single addresses - they're shorthand for "all addresses."

With a bit of local cooperation, Wordpress could actually do that - they just need someone nearby to set up a script to try and open those sites from every available (legitimate) IP address ("spoofing," possible for IPv4, no so much for IPv6). Then Wordpress would actually have every address in their logs.

Re:How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43121393)

they're shorthand for "all addresses."

Ahh, that explains it. Thanks. :)

Re:How about... (2)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about a year ago | (#43121813)

LOL, they should give them ALL the IP Addresses that connected and pad it with about a terabyte of possible IP addresses.

Technically they comply -- but trolls will have to sift out all the chaff.

Too funny.

Sine a lot of connectors IP addresses are going to change as the ISPs recycle them -- they could just leave off the dates and for the most part, having the IP address would be useless.

But it would really be sad if they had to comply with such a court order, as it totally abuses the justice system to intimidate and silence free "anonymous" speech. Companies don't have right to exist, after all.

IP Addresses Not Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43125631)

According to at least one judge, IP addresses are not sufficient to identify unique visitors.

http://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-address-doesnt-identify-a-person-120503/

Apparantly Prenda Law has never heard of NAT.

Wordpress has replied "no" (5, Informative)

davecb (6526) | about a year ago | (#43120365)

Wordpress replied that "the blog owner has already informed us that the subpoena will be challenged. Per our policies, we will not turn over any information (including on commentors) until that challenge has been decided by the courts."

Re:Wordpress has replied "no" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43123411)

A better tactic is to hunt down a troll and make things go thump in the night. A burning torch, a rope, a handy tree and the night will roar with glee.
                      The problem with the legal system is that it always costs money to defend even the most absurd suits. Maybe street justice is sometimes justified.

Re:How about... (1)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | about a year ago | (#43122767)

...even if you've never visited those sites, contact WordPress and tell them you want them to refuse.

This times a million: Make sure the understand that this will affect your decision about where to host your blog. They're in the free speech business: Time to sack-up.

Fuck Prenda Law (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119787)

They're mutant vampire aliens sent from Xenu to do the Devil's bidding.

Re:Fuck Prenda Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120093)

They're mutant vampire aliens sent from Xenu to do the Devil's bidding.

You know, I would suspect that people like that may take that to be a compliment. Kinda like going to a UFC fighter and telling him he's one mean ugly motherfucker - he'd probably give you a kiss.

Re:Fuck Prenda Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120773)

...he'd probably give you a kiss.

and then knock you the fuck out for daring to speak to him in the first place.

Re:Fuck Prenda Law (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43120871)

I would like to think that Prenda Law is doing us all a favor. By putting the absurdity of copyright, patent, libel, and slander laws on full display, we could hopefully see a more widespread movement to abolish this nonsense.

Fightcopyrighttrollfighters.com (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119789)

We can do this forever Brett!

Three words (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119801)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_to_quash

If you refuse the subpoena, the judge may decide that Wordpress is committing contempt of court. A better alternative would be to have their own lawyer request a motion to quash the subpoena.

Of course, the best thing Wordpress can do is to listen to corporate counsel and pay attention, but I'm no lawyer, so don't listen to me. :)

Re:Three words (1)

anarxia (651289) | about a year ago | (#43122101)

Yeah right. Wordpress will get fined in the worst case. In case they comply they will lose a lot of bloggers. Nice try Prenda Law.

Poison the well (3, Interesting)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#43119823)

Does that include the IP addresses of the 20 million visitors they will get over the next 48 hours for appearing on the Slashdot FP?

Re:Poison the well (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year ago | (#43120055)

Does that include the IP addresses of the 20 million visitors they will get over the next 48 hours for appearing on the Slashdot FP?

If I were a gambling man, my money would rest on "yes".

Re:Poison the well (2)

dotHectate (975458) | about a year ago | (#43120373)

To be fair both blogs have been linked in numerous previous /. articles and likely already have already registered many of those same IP addresses from those occasions. Well, at least the members of /. that break the rules and read linked articles :)

Re:Poison the well (2)

Legion303 (97901) | about a year ago | (#43121519)

"Well, at least the members of /. that break the rules and read linked articles :)"

And both of them are probably following this case very closely to see if their IP addresses are going to be released.

Re:Poison the well (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about a year ago | (#43121159)

Does that include the IP addresses of the 20 million visitors they will get over the next 48 hours for appearing on the Slashdot FP?

Sorry but a low end android phone could handle the load from a slashdotting these days.

Here's my IP address. go:fuck:your:self (1)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year ago | (#43119847)

And here's my IPv6 address: take:your:copyright:and:go:fuck:your:self

Re:Here's my IP address (2)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43120443)

That's not a valid IPv6 address. Remember, an address does have to be hex.

But here are my IP addresses - 192.168.10.106 for IPv4, or fe80::1c98:3703:3f57:f595%16 for IPv6. Have fun!

Re:Here's my IP address (2)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year ago | (#43120689)

That's not a valid IPv6 address. Remember, an address does have to be hex.

But here are my IP addresses - 192.168.10.106 for IPv4, or fe80::1c98:3703:3f57:f595%16 for IPv6. Have fun!

Okay fine, I'll hex it. beef::cafe:fa65:1410:face

Directed at Prenda, not you, kind sir. :)

Re:Here's my IP address (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43125761)

But my address is encoded in base64.

Fact finding by dragnet. (1)

Let's All Be Chinese (2654985) | about a year ago | (#43119853)

I wonder what they think they gain with that sort of stance. Gather up all IP addresses (which are NOT personal identification) and sue everyone remotely associatable? Including, say, google for indexing those sites? What?

If wordpress somehow cannot refuse (or just doesn't have any balls; this is a possibility) the least they can do is heap all the IP addresses together without specification. It seems that mounting a legal attack on such a broad range of hosts is sure to flounder.

And you'd think even copyright trolls ought to be smarter than that. But since they're entirely made up of sueball, perhaps not.

So it raises the question, and this is a useful thought experiment: What're they hoping to gain? Given such a heap of unspecified IP addresses, what would you be able to figure out from that? What if they are subspecified, what'd you be able to figure out then?

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (4, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about a year ago | (#43119883)

They want to intimidate.

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119997)

So give them all the IPs. Individually. On its own sheet of paper.

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (2)

AzTechGuy (1108805) | about a year ago | (#43120109)

One octet per sheet of paper With each IP put a code at the bottom of the page that match each octet. Then mix up all the papers before you send them over so they have to match the code at the bottom of the page. :) Hey, just sayin

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43120175)

One octet per sheet of paper

With each IP put a code at the bottom of the page that match each octet.

Hashed and salted.

What? Did the subpoena specify what format the IP addresses had to be in?

*evil grin*

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (3, Funny)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#43120375)

And then fax it to them via an email to fax service taking care to invert the colours first.

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43122447)

This was back in the days of fax machines with costly thermal paper and before internet faxing. Had a fax spammer that really pissed me off. Eventually found out his real fax number (it was generally spoofed in the fax data). So I spent a few minutes printing out a couple of pages of "FUCK YOU" in very large letters, taped them together in a loop, and let it rip. It went for a good hour before disconnecting. Never heard from that particular spammer again.

In the UK... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year ago | (#43121391)

... we have the Data Protection Act (the US doesn't have anything like this, unfortunately).

You could quite legitimately say that in accordance with your data protection policies, you will quite happily hand over the IP addresses and other information associated with them, no problem at all.

Just as long as you get written permission from the person who was using that IP address first.

Re:In the UK... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43123397)

So if Wordpress submits the data and it includes European users, then they are break European law - which means the court order is invalid as stated as it would force Wordpress to break EU law, which in turn is illegal and invalid.

Submit to the court that the subpoena would have to be reworded in such a way as not to induce EU law breaking, or else the Judge can be extradited to the EU to stand trial and spend time in EU prisons for inducing / forcing EU law breakage.

I actually like the idea of the Judge having to spend time in a German prison camp, perhaps they can re-open Stalag 13 for his private use.

Re:In the UK... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year ago | (#43124511)

Well kind of, but it's more that you can write - and legally enforce - a policy at your company that says that you will hand over any information about your customer on request, just so long as the person requesting it has that customer's explicit written permission to do so.

Now consider how this would work when they want to find out who has been torrenting from a particular IP address...

"We want the name and the address of the person using *this* IP at *this* date and time"
"Sure, just get me written permission from that person, and I'll send it right over"
"..."
"Ah, it's Data Protection, y'see, can't just hand it over..."

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120671)

They're doing it wrong.

If you want to intimidate, you have to burn a house or whack some kneecaps or install some concrete shoes.

These incompetent thugs will probably end up with the fishes.

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about a year ago | (#43121409)

Intimidate who exactly? The group of people they are targeting have already been victims of what basically amount to legal extortion from Prenda and other trolls. That's why this commonity exists in the first place. These people weren't intimidated by threat of lawsuit under weak legal theories then, and they won't be intimidated by threat of lawsuit under weak legal theories now. These are probably the *worst* people to possibly go after, as they are most the most savvy of anyone to this sordid and convoluted history of Prenda law.

I still cannot fathom what the actual logic is behind these lawsuits. Traffic to FTC has increased 10x since the lawsuits were filed, and there has been almost daily coverage on far more popular sites like Techdirt, Arstechnica, Pophat, Boing Boing, Torrentfreak, and of course Slashdot. This is the Streisand effect in action.

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43121487)

Hmm. Intimidate. Yes, they do that nicely when they go after a couple of John Doe's with settlement letters. But with something like this publicized - and them going after thousands with it - who should be intimidated? The thousands of people, or the 2 or 3 asshole lawyers? I know who would win in a fight - and it isn't the 2 or 3. I imagine the intimidation will run the other way around since this isn't hiding in the shadows like these bottom feeders prefer.

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (2)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43120081)

It's pretty clear from the summary what they want.

They want the IP Addresses then will cross check then against their list of IP Addresses of people who have pirated stuff then go after those guys.

Sure the cases may be dismissed, but some will pay and others will hire a lawyer out of their own pocket to fight it. Either way he pirates who visited the site will pay.

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (2)

dotHectate (975458) | about a year ago | (#43120433)

If you've read any of the posts at those blogs you'll note that this particular law firm operates without determining who actually pirated something. For example, when a court asked how they determined that the defendant was the perpetrator, they claimed that their research indicated he lived alone and thus was the sole user of the IP address. Of course a brief consultation with his lawyer ensued who quickly spoke up and indicated that the defendant has been married and living with his wife of many years now.

So the problem isn't necessarily that those who pirate will pay; but that those who are accused of pirating will pay irregardless of their innocence or guilt.

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43120501)

Now you're just being pedantic.

I was not going to go into the difficulties of IP Addresses being used as an identifier for piracy as it's pretty much assumed anyone reading this probably has already read 100+ other articles about just that thing and I was not going to waste my time and effort re-explaining it.

Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43121131)

Well, there you have it. Now I'm doubly informed, as I haven't read even 1 of those 100+ articles.

Pay with Bitcoin (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119855)

This won't help people who have already given out their identifying information, but you can now pay for Wordpress with bitcoins. Bitcoin isn't anonymous by default, but if you cover your tracks and use a coin mixing service it can be.

Re:Pay with Bitcoin (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43120085)

They are going after visitor IP Addresses and comparing it to the list of pirating IP Addresses they already have.

Re:Pay with Bitcoin (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43120187)

They are going after visitor IP Addresses and comparing it to the list of pirating IP Addresses they already have.

Because, apparently, alleged pirates do not have a 1st Amendment right.

Re:Pay with Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43121633)

I assume that if you're going to hide your money trail with Bitcoin, you're going to hide your IP address with Tor.

Anonymity? (1)

mstockman (188945) | about a year ago | (#43119877)

Hey, where did all of those people who say anonymity on the Internet isn't necessary run off to?

Re:Anonymity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119921)

Hey, where did all of those people who say anonymity on the Internet isn't necessary run off to?

He's Spartacus!

Re:Anonymity? (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | about a year ago | (#43120211)

Hey, where did all of those people who say anonymity on the Internet isn't necessary run off to?

He's Spartacus!

No, I am Spartacus.

Old timer (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year ago | (#43119925)

OK I'm an old timer who was on the internet when everyone used their real names and an employer email address. Shoot what did you want to say?

Anonymity dates back to the old days (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year ago | (#43120645)

The idea of online anonymity dates back to the days when September was not the only month online. The Penet remailer was created in 1993 just to prove the point that people could send and receive email without using their real names if they wanted to do so. Many of the designs concepts in modern systems like Tor can be traced back to Penet.

Re:Anonymity dates back to the old days (2)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#43121111)

The idea of online anonymity dates back to the days when September was not the only month online.

+1 Eternal September [knowyourmeme.com] reference. God damned AOL'ers. I knew it would come to this, back in '93. I just fucking knew it.

Re:Anonymity? (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year ago | (#43120757)

Hey, where did all of those people who say anonymity on the Internet isn't necessary run off to?

I'm sorry, could you repeat your question? I couldn't make it out with the extreme echo in the room...

Give'm Hell!! (4, Informative)

Bananatree3 (872975) | about a year ago | (#43119911)

Enjoy some afternoon reading, and piss in Prenda's sought-after goods:

FightCopyrightTrolls.com [fightcopyrighttrolls.com]

Dietrolldie.com [dietrolldie.com]

Re:Give'm Hell!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43121247)

Well, I was going to recommend we visit Prenda's own web site for a good old fashioned slashdotting, but it looks like they're already well prepared [prendalawfirm.com] for that kind of response.

Re:Give'm Hell!! I Can't!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43122521)

"This site not compatible with your browser."

But I reloaded the page about a 100 times just to be sure it was correct.

RELEASE !! INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119917)

If you want information to be free, then you MUST want this list to be RELEASED !! Information MUST BE FREE !! RELEASE the list !! Release THE list !! Release the LIST !!

Die Hypocrites Die !!

Tell WordPress (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119965)

I didn't find a good email addy with a quick scan, but Wordpress is at least on twitter, @WordPressDotCom. Let them know they give up their users privacy at their own peril. Plenty of alternative sites to host a blog.

Or maybe... (4, Interesting)

Beorytis (1014777) | about a year ago | (#43120057)

...Prenda just wants proof that lots and lots of unique visitors have viewed the allegedly-defaming content as justification for seeking a giant-size judgement.

Re:Or maybe... (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year ago | (#43120771)

...Prenda just wants proof that lots and lots of unique visitors have viewed the allegedly-defaming content as justification for seeking a giant-size judgement.

Maybe they should do some crying in front of the judge and jury. You know, make it look like it hurts really badly to have common folk calling you an ass when you're an ass. ;)

Legal blog summary (5, Informative)

spasm (79260) | about a year ago | (#43120105)

Popehat (a great legal blog - I have no affiliation, just a fan) has a great and hilarious summary of the case including why Prenda's lawyers could be facing jail on March 11:

http://www.popehat.com/2013/03/05/prenda-law-researches-streisand-effect-says-i-gotta-get-me-some-of-that/ [popehat.com]

and

http://www.popehat.com/2013/03/06/what-prenda-law-is-facing-in-los-angeles/ [popehat.com]

Re:Legal blog summary (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year ago | (#43120881)

I love 47 U.S.C. 230 [cornell.edu] Paragraph (e) -- (provided by Cornell Law School)

"(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4) No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law."

Re:Legal blog summary (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about a year ago | (#43121465)

Just posted w.r.t. this subpoena: http://www.popehat.com/2013/03/08/a-quick-note-regarding-prenda-laws-subpoena-to-wordpress/ [popehat.com]

There are a number of problems with this subpoena.

First, once Cooper and Godfread filed their notice of removal, the state court lost all jurisdiction over the matter (at least unless or until the case is sent back) and all proceedings in state court halted by operation of law — including the obligation to respond to outstanding discovery. Prenda Law would need to re-issue the subpoena in the federal proceeding.

Second, though I am looking into it, it's not clear to me whether Prenda Law followed the requisite procedure under the Uniform Interstate Discovery Act required for them to serve a subpoena on a California company in an Illinois case. We'll see.

Third, the subpoena is ridiculously overbroad. It asks for the IP addresses of everyone who visited the sites, not just people who made specified comments — let alone comments that could plausibly be deemed defamatory. Moreover, it demands IP addresses for a period in 2011 before Prenda Law existed, and therefore before it plausibly could have been defamed or wronged.

Fourth, under emerging doctrines governing attempts to discover the identity of anonymous commenters, it is doubtful that Prenda Law can justify its broad subpoena. Prenda's lawsuit, as I earlier pointed out, is a mish-mash of complaints about statements of fact (which could conceivably be defamatory) and statements of opinion (which cannot). Under these circumstances a court should quash the overbroad subpoena under the increasingly prevalent rule that a plaintiff must make some sort of preliminary showing to discover information about the identities of anonymous speakers.

Re:Legal blog summary (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about a year ago | (#43124697)

You missed the fact that by considering the site offensive to them, Preda have demonstrated that they believe themselves to be trolls. While I presume the US legal system does not actually include being a troll" as a crime, I would expect a jury to consider it to be incitement.

Hold on (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120117)

I thought information wants to be free. Why is it suddenly different when it's your information?

As the mislead world often does... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120173)

It'd be nice if the sheep had a leader that was willing to comment on wordpress' site, something like, "I'll give $10 for every IP address on that list, to the IP owner's client that used the IP at log time, if the heads of all of the patent trolls are displayed in public on the streets of $TOWN.

It'd be nice only because it's not going to happen like that, at all. In fact, this is what's going to happen:

This fake idea of what should be is going to be designed into the fabric of our thinking, and our children's thinking until it is no longer "weird". It's happened so many time before with so many things, why not this too? Eventually things like taxing gas to pay for fixing roads will become such an expected part of that society, that even if everyone starts riding bikes, and no longer damaging the roads as much (yeah, big trucks still need the road) it will not be expected for that system to explain why, but they'll find a way to use it as a reason to tax the folks that aren't driving cars anymore. Fuck man, it seems to me that if we continue this line of thinking, we will end up *having* to farm on our own, and all these taxes and shit will still be in place.

At what point do we begin DEMANDING that our politicians (our selected leaders? ...really?) put laws into place to avoid such apparent contradictions of nature itself, or all fully fucking admit that our system requires large amounts of money move this way, and succumb to it in a more direct, easier way, like another fucking tax, or like, maybe every 30 weeks, each of us spend a weekend at our local "richest guy's" house, doing chores for him directly, so he can sit out in his fucking yard, planning our children's future?

The sites that you need to go to in order to help form a large mass that cannot be denied is included in this story. Go to those sites, despite the attempt to sway you from doing so, and look into ways that you can be an active part of a solution. Don't just post your opinion on sites like this and feel good about what you said, fucking. do. something. about. what. sucks!

my .02

Tor ftw? (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#43120363)

Seems like it's a good time to think about plugging the cable modem into a persistent Tor connection or something. If the courts can't protect 1st amendment rights, Tor would at least make it harder for the Trolls to drag you through legal mire over a basic right that's supposed to be protected under the constitution.

Give them all the addresses (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year ago | (#43120503)

Once a teacher I had asked a student each class to write down the names of the onces who disturbed class. Students on the list had to stay after class.

When I was the one who had to write the names down, I could not get myself to write down just some names. So I wrote down all the names.
I then challenged here that she could either let everybody stay, let nobody stay or let just me stay. In any case the list would be useless from now on. (The next step would be that we would write down random names.)

So if they want all the IP addresses, why not write a small script that puts out all those addresses and mail them all at once from all over the planet.

Re:Give them all the addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43121485)

In any case the list would be useless from now on.

I'd choose one of two options:

1. Holding only you back after class twice: once for disrupting class with your sophomoric smartassery, and a second time for failing to follow instructions. Then I'd never ask you to do that job again;

2. Asking you to leave the room then telling everyone else they must stay, and pointing out that this will happen each time someone disobeys the instructions. Then I'd dare you to do the job badly a second time.

Re:Give them all the addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43122583)

Christ, you're a real prick to be sure.

Re:Give them all the addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43125749)

> 2. Asking you to leave the room then telling everyone else they must stay, and pointing out that this will happen each time someone disobeys the instructions.

In times of war, collective punishment is considered a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions. It's interesting that in times of peace you would inflict on children that what would be illegal to inflict upon your enemies in times of war.

SLAPP (4, Interesting)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year ago | (#43120513)

I'm surprised they can't get these cases moved to SLAPP status... The same corp filing 3 cases in 3 courts over "defamation" sounds like they are using the courts to shut up people they don't want to hear from. These sites are naming names and events, so they might get them on technicalities... But then FOX news got a pass that FABRICATIONS were still not defamation... So the only possible purpose of the suits is to collect information to harass the readers later.

Part of the problem revolves around court culture. Lawyers are used to going to court and calling defendants, plaintiffs all kinds of names, making grand requests for judgements that are hundreds of thousands of dollars... Then packing their briefcases and going out to lunch with the other lawyers.

Judges don't like reporters going after the LAWYERS in a case because "it's just business". Except in these cases, the lawyers ARE the ones causing the problems .. Courts don't really censor what lawyers say in court... But then what they say HAS to be taken as intent to keep these threats...

It takes time for the judges to pick up that these guys are running the same thing in every town... The legal PROCESS can't keep up rules to prevent this stuff.

Re:SLAPP (1)

WillDraven (760005) | about a year ago | (#43124075)

If you read the full story behind what's going on here [popehat.com] , you'll see that the lawyers who filed this motion are all getting dragged in front of a federal judge that they've managed to piss off. The judge has been throwing phrases like "defraud the court" and "incarceration" so Monday's hearing should be fun to watch.

Here it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43121103)

192.168.0.2

Re:Here it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43125743)

192.168.1.2
You must live in the next street to me.

Best use of slashdot effect. (3, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#43121249)

Now if every slashdotter clicked on those to links, and forwarded it to all their friends, or put those links in as auto loads in some of their blogs, ...

One word... Tor... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43121971)

That is all. Thank you.

You can still Copy/paste the redacted PDF (1)

RobXiii (685386) | about a year ago | (#43122089)

Some of the PDF they linked at http://ia701508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.71.0.pdf [archive.org] has redacted parts. You can simply copy/paste the redacted part into a text file to see what was said. LOL.

Re:You can still Copy/paste the redacted PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43122409)

Some of the PDF they linked at
http://ia701508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.71.0.pdf [archive.org]

  has redacted parts. You can simply copy/paste the redacted part into a text file to see what was said. LOL.

I believe you are referring to the highlighted parts (they should show in yellow) not the redacted parts (show in black). An easy test would be the actual home address right at the beginning of the questioning. If you get anything more than "Minneapolis, Minnesota" then you are right.

Re:You can still Copy/paste the redacted PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43122563)

BTW, Brett L. Gibbs (Brett Gibbs) is an ass.

So? (1)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | about a year ago | (#43123493)

Really, so what if a particular IP address accessed them? That proves nothing. Pointless. Non-story other than Prenda Law trying to scare people. "Oooooo we have your IP". Fuck Prenda Law. No, I'm not posting as an anonymous coward.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43124529)

Additionally, they can suck on my big fat British cock too. Though I would not put it past our brain dead government to extradite me to the land of the free to face trial for gong to a website.

Anonymous Coward because again I have forgotten the password and I can't be arsed to find it.

Re:So? (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about a year ago | (#43124705)

our brain dead government to extradite me to the land of the free to face trial for gong to a website. Its called a "special relationship". In a normal relationship, this would be a two way thing, but this one is special: We have to take it up the arse without complaining.

Just get your own domain! (1)

John Allsup (987) | about a year ago | (#43125415)

I am in the process of migrating from gmail.com and wordpress.com to chalisque.{net,org} and chalisque.com and related websites: that way you control what is and is not done, and have an actual binding legal contract with the hosting provider which clearly sets out who is responsible for what. Of course this costs money, but you do get what you pay for with free-as-in-beer services.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...