DOJ Taking Down Sites For Infringement... While Infringing Content Is Available Via Its Own Network

from the look-at-that dept

Following on the story of IP addresses assigned to the major Hollywood studios using BitTorrent to distribute copyright-covered works, Torrentfreak and Scaneye are back pointing out that the same thing is true of all of the major labels and various parts of the US government. That last part is interesting, because they show that IP addresses assigned to the Justice Department, Homeland Security and Congress are all being used by people to distribute popular works covered by copyright. Here, for example, is just a snippet of the content being shared via IP addresses assigned to the Justice Department:
Again, the same caveats to yesterday's article apply -- but the key issue remains. If the big content industry folks, along with government officials in the Justice Department are using evidence like IP addresses to make their case of infringement, it would seem like they ought to clean up their own homes first.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 7:39am

    I demand Ox Justice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mesonoxian Eve (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 7:40am

    Looks like the "DOJ" needs a new definition.

    I recommend "Department of Just Do What I Say, Not What I do."

    Now we await the "facts" no employee would dare infringe using government property but all this was done by that nasty and elusive "Anonymous".

    (just like the downloading of porn was the "fault" of malicious software).

    Meh. It's the government. I expected nothing less.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      PRMan, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:24am

      Re:

      Maybe it's the Department of Just ICE. As in, all they do anymore is shutdown counterfeit products and pirate websites.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Coogan (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 7:42am

    Sorry, Mike

    You seem to be under the impression that those who make and enforce our laws are somehow bound by them every bit as much as the common American.

    Silly, silly citizen. Don't you know that while all people are created equal, some are more equal than others?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 7:51am

    If the big content industry folks, along with government officials in the Justice Department are using evidence like IP addresses to make their case of infringement, it would seem like they ought to clean up their own homes first.

    Spell it out for me, Mike. What is your argument exactly? Are you arguing that "big content industry folks" and "government officials in the Justice Department" are not allowed to enforce copyright law until every single person in their employ does not infringe whatsoever at all? How does that make sense? This is just more sour grapes from you. It's amazing to me how viscerally you hate the MPAA/DOJ.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Coogan (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 7:58am

      Re:

      Spell it out for me, Mike

      Not Mike, but I'd spell it H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Dave Xanatos, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:05am

      Re:

      It's amazing to me how viscerally you hate the MPAA/DOJ.

      Why is that amazing. Pretty much everyone hates hypocrites. Even Jesus.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:08am

      Re:

      "Spell it out for me, Mike."

      Yeah, you would need it spelled out for you.

      "hat is your argument exactly? Are you arguing that "big content industry folks" and "government officials in the Justice Department" are not allowed to enforce copyright law until every single person in their employ does not infringe whatsoever at all?"

      No, the argument appears to be that it's hypocritical for them to go after others BASED SOLELY ON IP ADDRESSES when people in their employ are doing the same. Basically, "Do as we say and not as we do."

      "How does that make sense?"

      It makes sense, mr lawyer in training, because it shows that justice is equally doled out to all. Not just those that the various industries dislike for whatever reason. Which is something YOU of all people should be calling for.

      "This is just more sour grapes from you. It's amazing to me how viscerally you hate the MPAA/DOJ."

      If you replace MPAA/DOJ with Mike/Techdirt that comment would equally apply to you. Perhaps more so. WHY WON'T YOU DEBATE ME?!?! RAWR!!! I'M GOING TO DISRUPT THREADS ANONYMOUSLY AND NOT ANONYMOUSLY FOR DAYS ON END OTHERWISE!!! RAWR!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        icon
        average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:45am

        Re: Re:

        You're so cute when you're angry. Rather than being so angry and hateful, why don't you be productive? Please explain to me how, because of this flimsy evidence from TF, it's "hypocritical for them to go after others BASED SOLELY ON IP ADDRESSES"? I don't see the connection. These IP addresses are evidence just like any other IP address.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:53am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I'm not angry. I'm just quoting you. It's cute how dismissive and high and mighty you try and come off as. More so given your history of behavior and comments on this site.

          It's hypocritical, person who apparently hasn't a clue, because if it were any other user they would be making a federal case about it or demanding settlements. It's hypocritical because they demand others keep their affairs in order and monitor anything and everything and everyone under the sun to police infringement and punish/remove accordingly and ASAP, but apparently they can't keep their own houses in order.

          That you don't see the connection is more from deliberate ignorance on your part than anything else.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            icon
            average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You are super angry. Yes, I hound Mike about not answering questions because I think he's dishonest. Get over it.

            So if some employee is violating company policy and doing something they shouldn't be doing, you think that company has no place defending its rights? I guess that means that every single company on earth has to shut down. You guys are just so desperate to tear them down. It's hilarious.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Leigh Beadon (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:13am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Actually Joe, you've admitted on more than one occasion that you lose your temper and act like a baby, and apologized for it. And now you're trying to pretend that never happened, and lecture others for getting angry with you (followed by you immediately going back to being obviously really angry with Mike)

              You've made one solid point in your favour, though: the DOJ's behaviour here is no longer the MOST hypocritical thing I've seen today...

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:16am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                So spell it out for me. Let's assume that employees at the DOJ and the MPAA, against company policy, are infringing. What does that mean?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Leigh Beadon (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:24am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  a) It means that simply magically stopping piracy is obviously either not as easy or not as important as these groups claim. After all, what could be easier than monitoring your own government/corporate network and firing people who use it for piracy? Either they aren't actually confident in the ability of an IP address to identify someone, or their priority isn't actually stopping piracy.

                  b) It means such groups obviously don't believe the rhetoric they spew about piracy. They regularly compare it to theft, even violent robbery, and talk about how it is always a "crime". Do these companies, and the DOJ itself, not care about employing thieves and criminals? Clearly they don't believe that piracy is as egregious an offence as they claim.

                  c) It shows that, according to such groups' own arguments, they are themselves liable -- as companies or agencies -- for this piracy happening on their networks. After all, they have repeatedly claimed that an IP address is sufficient to identify someone, and that the person operating a network is liable for the activities of their users. So by that standard, are not the DOJ and the MPAA themselves guilty of infringement here?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                     
                    icon
                    average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:35am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    a) Straw man. Where did the MPAA say that stopping piracy is easy? How do you know they aren't monitoring their networks and firing people? You don't.

                    b) So if an employee does something without his boss's permission or knowledge, that means his boss doesn't believe what he says? I don't see it.

                    c) If someone is using their networks to violate the law, then either that someone or the employer would be liable. Chances are they'll get away with it just like millions of others do.

                    I applaud you for at least trying to make an argument.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Leigh Beadon (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:49am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      a & b) The MPAA has repeatedly stated that it thinks service providers like Google should proactively monitor their services for piracy, and rejects all arguments that this is prohibitively difficult or impossible. If Google is expected to monitor all the thousands of hours of video being constantly uploaded to YouTube by millions of people, why is the MPAA not monitoring its own corporate networks with much smaller user numbers? Can we expect to see an investigation and lawsuit against these recently-revealed MPAA employee pirates?

                      You're right, I don't know if the DOJ and the MPAA have fired people for this -- which makes me assume they didn't or they are purposely trying to hide the hypocrisy. After all, I sure as hell know every time they target other pirates thanks to their regular press releases and ongoing media push.

                      When the MPAA releases a statement about its zero-tolerance policy for employee piracy and its ongoing crackdowns, and sends out press releases about the employees they sue for violating this policy -- e.g. exactly what they do when they sue people who don't work for them -- I'll stop calling this "hypocrisy". Until then, it's textbook.

                      c) So if someone sued the MPAA for sharing on their network, we can assume they would not argue their liability, right? After all, they reject everyone else's arguments on that front, and insist that both companies and individuals are automatically responsible for what goes on on their networks. Granted this is hypothetical, but are you honestly going to tell me you don't think they would take a different view if they were the target of the lawsuit?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                         
                        icon
                        average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 10:24am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Sorry, but this is just sour grapes. Even if we assume that this is evidence of an employee violating the law, it doesn't affect the MPAA's desire for intermediaries to shoulder more of the burden of enforcement. You just aren't connecting the two, Leigh. If a right holder had this IP evidence and wanted to file suit against the MPAA, they could. Discovery would commence, and we might find out that it was an open wireless connection that a visitor used. Or we find out an employee violated the law. It's just like with everyone else. You're trying to find something here, but all you have is a flimsy TF article. I understand how important it is for you to defend Mike and the blame the MPAA for everything wrong in the world. Don't worry.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Leigh Beadon (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 10:33am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Even if we assume that this is evidence of an employee violating the law, it doesn't affect the MPAA's desire for intermediaries to shoulder more of the burden of enforcement.

                          I don't see how it would effect its "desire", but it certainly effects people's perception of that desire and of the rhetoric and policy positions connected to it. That is, of course, why you are so desperate to ignore it.

                          "we might find out that it was an open wireless connection that a visitor used"

                          (an argument that copyright holders frequently reject as a valid defence against liability)

                          You're trying to find something here

                          Not trying to find anything -- already found a clear example of what virtually anyone would call "hypocrisy". You are convinced that's unimportant or meaningless -- fine. Go read an article that interests you.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                             
                            icon
                            average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 10:55am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            I don't see how it would effect its "desire", but it certainly effects people's perception of that desire and of the rhetoric and policy positions connected to it.

                            What rhetoric? Point me to something they said and then explain to me how this affects it. You can't.

                            (an argument that copyright holders frequently reject as a valid defence against liability)

                            Huh? You have lots of crazy ideas. You should get out and read more than just Techdirt for this stuff. You are just mindlessly regurgitating Mike's bullshit. That somebody else did it can be a defense, no matter who the defendant is. This doesn't affect that at all.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Leigh Beadon (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 11:17am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Oh joe, don't play dumb.

                              The MPAA paints piracy as an egregious crime, and frequently compares it to wholesale theft of property. Indeed, it has repeatedly stated that fighting piracy is the organization's "top priority" or a "critical priority".

                              If stopping piracy is their top priority, and if all pirates are criminals equivalent to car thieves, it reflects rather badly on them that it is happening within their own organization. Apparently you don't agree, but since you are desperate to defend every action of the copyright industries, I'm not too surprised.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                 
                                icon
                                average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 11:39am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                I don't care what they do. I'm not completely obsessed with everything they do like Mike is. I'm only pointing out that if some employee is a pirate it doesn't matter. That employee should be held accountable just like every other pirate. All businesses have employees who break the law. You're trying to make something out of nothing. Anything to discredit this group you guys so desperately hate.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  icon
                                  Leigh Beadon (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 11:44am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  Yes, it does matter. By its own mandate, a huge part of the MPAA's purpose is public education and spreading the message that piracy is wrong.

                                  This kinda hurts that message, doesn't it?

                                  Do you think people will be more or less likely to believe the MPAA's harsh condemnation of filesharing -- painting it as "theft" and a "crime" -- with the knowledge that it goes on inside their own organization?

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                     
                                    icon
                                    average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 11:50am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    This kinda hurts that message, doesn't it?

                                    Nope. Infringement is wrong whether some employee wrongfully does it or not.

                                    Do you think people will be more or less likely to believe the MPAA's harsh condemnation of filesharing -- painting it as "theft" and a "crime" -- with the knowledge that it goes on inside their own organization?

                                    I think smart people will see that it doesn't matter and dumb people will think it means something.

                                     

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    •  
                                      icon
                                      Leigh Beadon (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 11:58am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      OK, if that's how you feel, then I guess it shows something else: the MPAA is incompetent and ineffectual, and incredibly arrogant for such a useless organization -- unable to even police a network that they have full control over, while deigning to tell people how to police a massive global network that no one entity has control over.

                                       

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    •  
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:14pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      "I think smart people will see that it doesn't matter and dumb people will think it means something."

                                      I think dumb people (like average_joe) will think that it doesn't matter and smart people (like everyone else here) will see it means something.

                                       

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    •  
                                      icon
                                      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:30pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      I think smart people will see that it doesn't matter and dumb people will think it means something.


                                      And that says everything we need to know about you.

                                       

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                         
                                        icon
                                        average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:49pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        And that says everything we need to know about you.

                                        Always with the high-level meaningless rhetoric. Never with the substance. What is your argument exactly, Mike? Don't pretend like saying "they ought to clean up their own homes first" is actually an argument. It's not. What is your argument, exactly? What exactly do you argue this TF article means? Or do you admit that the article is more hate-fueled, mindless FUD meant to discredit your mortal enemy?

                                         

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        •  
                                          identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:57pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          It is if they want the moral high-ground.

                                          And as for what it means, it's completely unsurprising that these organisations are gigantic hypocrites, going off their own logic.

                                           

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        •  
                                          icon
                                          Leigh Beadon (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 3:54pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          Frankly Joe I think you are overcomplicating things.

                                          The loudest anti-piracy crusaders can't even keep piracy out of their own back yard. I for one find that amusing, and somewhat telling. It's indicative of what I see as an often-contradictory and hypocritical stance taken by organizations like this — even if there are no specific, strong implications to this one element of the pattern.

                                          If you want to label that "hate-fueled, mindless FUD" then that's your prerogative. Most people seem to have no trouble understanding the subtle implications of this.

                                           

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:12pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  "That employee should be held accountable just like every other pirate."

                                  But they haven't.
                                  That's the point, boy.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:15pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "we might find out that it was an (DoJ) open wireless connection that a visitor used."

                          Do you really think the DoJ are as technically-incompetent as you, boy?

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 10:00am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Thanks for blaying but now its time for you to go away, please go pester your professors and lower their IQ's.

                      1) MPAA and RIAA have both stated that it would be easy for Google and other to stop piracy, stop acting like you have not heard this before, they say it about 3 times a week (course i will give you the benefit of doubt because you might not have heard it over your own minds quacking).

                      2) any Company or Corporation has certain key values that all of the comapny must believe it, as RIAA/MPAA key focus has been "piracy" for the last 10 years, they have either done a piss poor job of internal branding, or they put up a big front to the outside world and inside its a different matter... your choice on which part of stupid they are.

                      3) if the IP's of Techdirt showed up YOU would be first in line to say everyone at the company must defend their actions and say its absolute proof, now that its the other way... it must mean something else...

                      Yup, you qualify to work for any of these asshats with your double speak and sole focus on your objective while disgarding anything that might upset your perfect little apple cart..

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:07pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "So if an employee does something without his boss's permission or knowledge, that means his boss doesn't believe what he says?"

                      No, boy, it means the employee doesn't believe what his boss says.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  weneedhelp (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:30am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Joe 0
                  Marcus 2

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:59am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  it means a lone ip address is an unacceptable piece of evidence to levy a multi-million dollar punishment against a human being

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  btr1701 (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 10:49am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  > So spell it out for me. Let's assume that
                  > employees at the DOJ and the MPAA, against
                  > company policy, are infringing. What does
                  > that mean?

                  The same thing it means for any other company caught infringing through employee misconduct.

                  The RIAA/MPAA care not whether the employees of a company are misbehaving or not. They hold the company responsible, with draconian fines, loss of domain, three strikes, etc.

                  Why do you think it's inappropriate that the very people who write and lobby for these laws should have to abide by them themselves and pay the same penalties for violating them as everyone else?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:06pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "So spell it out for me. Let's assume that employees at the DOJ and the MPAA, against company policy, are infringing. What does that mean?"

                  They're b-r-e-a-k-i-n-g t-h-e-i-r o-w-n l-a-w-s, b-o-y!
                  Consider it spelled out, boy.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Machin Shin (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:19am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Well, let me see if I can translate this into a form your mind can grasp.

              They are pointing a finger saying I stole something of theirs because my IP address was linked to it. They think this is enough evidence that I should be punished. They do not care that it could have been any number of people on the network.

              Now on the flip side, here we have their IP address clearly linked to the exact same activity. So if we apply the same logic to them that they apply to me, it means they are also guilty and should get same treatment.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Stig Rudeholm (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:36am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              average_joe:
              "So if some employee is violating company policy and doing something they shouldn't be doing, you think that company has no place defending its rights?"

              So, what you're saying is that it's wrong to hold the entire company or organization liable for what a few employees are doing?

              Sort of like how it's not really MegaUpload's responsibility if individual users used the service to infringe? Or how The Pirate Bay should not be held liable for what their users do? Or how it's not really Google's fault what their users post on YouTube? Etc, etc, etc....

              You mean like that?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:42am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Yes, I hound Mike about not answering questions because I think he's dishonest. Get over it."

              I am over it, I'm just pointing out how it's hypocritical of you to tell me I'm super angry when I am anything but. And your "evidence" of me being "angry" is me quoting you. If anything my quoting you shows who the angry person has been for quite some time now.

              Also, if you think Mike's dishonest and not answering questions, and he refuses to respond, perhaps you should take your own advice. GET OVER IT.

              "So if some employee is violating company policy and doing something they shouldn't be doing, you think that company has no place defending its rights?"

              Did you see me say that? No, cause I didn't. I pointed out the hypocrisy of their actions thus far. If anyone else had done the same thing, and the evidence was merely an IP address, they'd be all over them and making examples out of them and flaunting them for all to see what happens when you infringe someone's copyright. In addition to which, they routinely point at Google and demand they "do more" and monitor everything everywhere at anytime and say "it's easy to do so" and "it's easy to know what's infringing". Yet here we have people under their own roofs committing infringement. It would be prudent for them to make examples of said employees. "Why?" you didn't ask. Because it shows that justice will be served regardless of who the person is and where they are employed. It sets a good example and a great precedent.

              "I guess that means that every single company on earth has to shut down."

              No, it doesn't. Especially since your statement is made about something I quite clearly never stated nor implied.

              "You guys are just so desperate to tear them down."

              No, we're not. But what is being shown is that piracy is happening to some degree even in those holy of holies (the DOJ and the movie studios). And it would be hypocritical of them to not do something about it.

              "It's hilarious."

              Yeah, your comments thus far are. Hand waving and outright dismissal of what's going on, as well as hypocrisy on your part. "Do as I say, not as I do." Hi, I'm average_joe. Only I'm allowed to be angry on this website. And justice is only for those I and the DOJ/studios deem it should be, meaning us. If a regular person, or person we don't like does something we don't approve of, we will bring down the full weight of the law on them (and then some, even if it requires breaking the law to do so). But don't you dare point out that we're breaking the law and actually making a mockery of the justice system in the process! Or else I'll cover my ears and just say "na na na I can't hear you". Because I'm average_joe and that's how I roll.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                 
                icon
                average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:49am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                tl;dr. Sorry, but you're a bore.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 10:07am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Nope, you lost again, so now its time for you to run away like normal, soon you will be posting "ANON" style full of vingar and hate, then you will disappear for a few months (oh those blessed months of nothing but the other nut job Blue boy) then you will return and start the cycle over again...

                  As a professional, seek help, proving Einstein was correct is not healthly nor conductive to long term well being...

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                     
                    icon
                    average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 10:19am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    I haven't run anywhere. You guys are just spouting a bunch of nonsense, but not one of you can make an actual argument that makes sense about this. All you have are notions of hypocrisy and FUD.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 11:44am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Talking into the mirror again?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 12:17pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      You sound like an american politician tbh. You need quite a heavy bias to categorise all of the arguments made in this thread as nonsense:

                      1. Accept that there are issues you disagree with people on and if they are assinine, well let it go or ignore their vile while answering the underlying point. Those are not worth discussing anything with (Life is too short and all that). I let Out_of_the_blue write his own things without answering since he is not interested in discussing. Works for both of us!

                      2. You get emotional and pike people by either ad hom'ing it up yo, strawmanning bigtime, exagerating like no tomorrow and generally do not show any respect of the people you argue with. I do the same at times, but it is really pronounced from you. It is immature and doesn't strenghten your point in any way. Go for factual answers by shooting down claims by sourcing or work around their critisism. "soft position bargaining" is a strong tool if you are a fish in sharky water. It is the only way to reason with some of the large egos here.

                      3. You don't need to get the last word to make people change minds and you certainly don't need to invest emotionally in what you write. It is hard to get critizised for what you write, but sometimes you have to work the angles and accept that your first post was unnuanced. Thereby you can avoid a lot of the meaningless ad hominem shit like all that is written in this post.

                      4. If you want a battle of sourcing, you should always show that you are yourself ready to keep up to a standard on that subject by providing the first. It is an unwritten law of good argumentation.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              btr1701 (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 10:45am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              > So if some employee is violating company
              > policy and doing something they shouldn't
              > be doing, you think that company has no
              > place defending its rights?

              The entertainment industry can defend its rights all it likes, genius. However, it should be subject to the same penalties and punishments that it would see imposed on everyone else.

              Why do you have such a hard time with the concept of equal application of the law to everyone?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              " Yes, I hound Mike about not answering questions because I think he's dishonest. Get over it."

              And we will hound you, boy, until you answer honestly. Get over it.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 4:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "These IP addresses are evidence just like any other IP address."

          Oooh! You almost got it! Try to continue that train of thought, you might get there...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      G Thompson (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:09am

      Re:

      Here let me spell it out in the language of courts everywhere in common law countries.

      sine timore aut favore

      or in Plain English

      Without fear nor favour


      Sadly your bias of only stating that some pigs are created more equal than others is letting your Orwellian side shine through.

      Though since law is really in effect a governmental construct to impose order, predictability, equity, structure, security, and above all else confidence onto the public in its many institutions I would say if they do not take issue with this matter within there own nest so to speak they have no basis on which to prosecute or otherwise anyone else.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:16am

      Re:

      I think there are a number of interesting things that this highlights.

      As you have noted, these companies and government agencies are probably unable to monitor the use of their computer systems to ensure their employees are not using these systems for infringing purposes. They are, however, frequently claiming that Google is capable of making sure every employee of every company and government agency worldwide can be monitored to ensure they do not upload infringing content.

      This is torrent tracking. So, it seems to indicate that the computers on these networks (presumably behind a firewall of some sort) are allowed to have and use torrent software. Is this an indication that these companies and agencies cannot block torrent software, or is it an indication that torrent software is somehow being used in a useful and legal manner by employees of these companies as well.

      Considering these companies have the IP address of these computers, and these appear to be companies and agencies interested in stopping piracy, why don't we see a significant number of lawsuits against the employees, agencies, or companies involved? Aren't these basically low-hanging fruit?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:25am

      Re:

      "Spell it out for me, Mike. What is your argument exactly?"

      When you can't argue the facts or counter the clearly-stated position held in many articles (and explained when you asked before), claim ignorance.

      Do you find this tactic works, or are you pretending to have the intellect of a root vegetable for fun?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        icon
        average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:05am

        Re: Re:

        When you can't argue the facts or counter the clearly-stated position held in many articles (and explained when you asked before), claim ignorance.

        What is the argument exactly? It's not ignorance. This article is pure FUD. Mike can't even make a cogent argument, so he goes with the vague "get your house in order!" argument. What does that mean? Is no company allowed to enforce its rights until every single employee at the company never breaks any law? I don't get it because there's nothing to get. It's hate-fueled FUD from the master whiner himself. His hatred and anger have clouded his judgment so much that he can't even make an argument. He just posts anything he can find from any source that can possibly be used to make them look bad. Mike doesn't want to add anything to the discussion about IP policy. He just wants to hate people and be a complete childish asshole.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Ruben, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I believe the main thrust of his argument goes something like "you're so terrible at finding infringement, you can't even rein it in at your own organization." Hence the "get your own house in order" line.

          Hardly FUD. There's no element of fear, uncertainty, or doubt here.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            icon
            average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:48am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I believe the main thrust of his argument goes something like "you're so terrible at finding infringement, you can't even rein it in at your own organization." Hence the "get your own house in order" line.

            Hardly FUD. There's no element of fear, uncertainty, or doubt here.


            How do you know that they didn't find the infringer and fire him? You guys are really reading into this too much. It's FUD because it just lays it out there hoping that the reader will use their imagination to fill in the gaps. They can't stop an employee from deciding to break the law more than any other company. If Leigh drinks and drives, I wouldn't blame Mike.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Ruben, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 11:32am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Any administrator worth his salt should have no problem controlling traffic on their own intranet. Especially on what I presume to be a larger corporate network run by the MPAA, DOJ, etc.

              They can't stop an employee from deciding to break the law more than any other company. If Leigh drinks and drives, I wouldn't blame Mike.

              That's about the weakest analogy I've ever seen. If Leigh drinks and drives a car on public streets, it's his choice. If Leigh gets drunk and drives the TechDirt company forklift through their warehouse and winds up running over Tim Cushing, you'd better bet they'll be in deep doo doo with OSHA, among others, for failing to prevent an obviously drunken individual from operating their heavy equipment.

              Your move, AJ.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Rikuo (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 11:33am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Simple. Because there's been no press release from them, they haven't been shouting "Employees caught pirating given the can!" from the rooftops. Without clear evidence that they are able to do what they demand everyone else do, then you defending them is just the clearest sign of hypocrisy.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              JMT (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 3:56pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "You guys are really reading into this too much."

              Keep desperately trying to downplay this Joe. 30-odd comments of you basically screaming "Nothing to see here" while waving your arms, hoping somebody will believe you. Trying to impress a potential future employer maybe?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 6:12pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Trying to impress a potential future employer maybe?

                Prenda Law.

                He's got the trolling down. Just needs to get his law degree. Just a few more cracker jack boxes and that'll do it.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 4:35pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So... nothing apart from lies and a mistaken version of what FUD means? Got it.

          I'm actually struggling to work out what you're on about here. On the one hand, you seem to be admitting that you know what Mike is talking about (it's rich that the DOJ are helping to attack every other company and/or individual when its own employees are committing the same "crime") while attacking him for not making himself clear. On the other hand, you're attacking him for whining, while spending a long time doing the same thing yourself without ever getting to anything resembling a point.

          Make up your mind. Either you don't know what he's saying (as you originally made out), or you don't like how he's saying it (which doesn't invalidate any point he's making). Pick one.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 5:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I vote this comment as hypocricy of the week! Saying that anger and hatred clouded someone elses judgement while calling someone a childish asshole. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DS, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:44am

      Re:

      "Spell it out for me, Mike."

      As if that would make a difference to you?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        icon
        average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:55am

        Re: Re:

        As if that would make a difference to you?

        I don't think he has an actual argument, and he's just throwing this out there in yet another sad attempt to discredit the MPAA and the DOJ, two organizations that he clearly hates with all of his might. It's childish sour grapes, and he's clearly writing these types of articles for the dregs of society. His audience and TorrentFreak's audience are one in the same. That says all you need to know about Mike. At least TF is honest about their beliefs.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          That intellectual property laws are ineffectual in the information age? Welcome to the 21st century.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 3:02pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Mike doesn't need to attempt to discredit any of the MAFIAA or the DOJ they do a pretty good job at that all by their lonesomes.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:03pm

      Re:

      " Are you arguing that "big content industry folks" and "government officials in the Justice Department" are not allowed to enforce copyright law until every single person in their employ does not infringe whatsoever at all?"

      Yes, boy.
      It's "Do as I say, not as I do" until they do.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 7:09pm

      Re:

      It's like how you can't advocate going vegetarian while you're chowing down on a triple patty hamburger. Um, duh?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 7:52am

    "they ought to clean up their own homes first."

    YES, but even if persons in those places ARE actually committing infringement, that in NO degree makes it legal, reduces the culpability of others, nor supports your pirate notions!

    This is a stretch even for Malleable Mike. It's so flimsy that he even has to list the caveats.




    Click here for Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
    Help make Mike the #1 quipper on the net! -- Click one for The Quipper!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:11am

      Re: "they ought to clean up their own homes first."

      Until you answer the simple question put to you, all your comments are weak and unmanly.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:12am

      Re: "they ought to clean up their own homes first."

      It doesn't make it legal but it does show that using IPs isn't good evidence. If those are from the justice department then they should be cleaned up before start suing other people for the same infringement. If those are spoofed, then IPs shouldn't be used since anyone could have those IPs.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Michael, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:20am

        Re: Re: "they ought to clean up their own homes first."

        "it does show that using IPs isn't good evidence"

        Actually, it doesn't. I agree that IP addresses are poor indicators of an individual, but this evidence does not indicate that until they track an IP back to someone who didn't infringe.

        What this information IS indicating pretty clearly is selective enforcement of law - which seems far worse.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:34am

          Re: Re: Re: "they ought to clean up their own homes first."

          The problem is, how do you determine if that person infringed? I think IPs could be used to start the trail but it shouldn't be used as the primary evidence.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          BigKeithO, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 12:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: "they ought to clean up their own homes first."

          How is it selective enforcement? Isn't copyright infringement a civil issue? If it is a civil issue then it isn't up to the Government to bring charges at all. The MPAA (or label etc) would have to bring charges against the DOJ.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 3:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "they ought to clean up their own homes first."

            It was, now is downright dirty...I mean...criminal.

            See for yourself the new laws recently passed.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:19am

      Re: "they ought to clean up their own homes first."

      This amuses be. "Because it's THE LAW!!!" is the biggest excuse levied against Google and TPB, both of which are search Engines.

      However, when the MPAA is shown, from the same datapoints, to be infringing on the laws they helped to write, sudddenly it's a "rogue operator".

      Does that phrase sound familiar? That's because News International used that phrase back in 2009, when the first inklings of Press malfeasance were exposed in the UK.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:14am

    Ummm mind my ignorance.. but what is a Quipper? Is it some American colloquialism I have not heard of before, or have you mispelt Gipper?

    Oh and hope you had a good holiday Blue we all missed ya...

    ...Though our aim is getting better ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:17am

    The sad thing is that we are so dulled by years of broken promises, hypocrisy and corruption from elected officials that stories like these barely have an effect on us. We just expect it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:41am

    the first issue here, surely, is the fact that the US entertainment industries and US law enforcement just want torrents shut down. they want torrent sites shut down even if there are no infringing files on that site. they want sites shut down that link to torrent sites. they want everything to do with or even mentions torrents shut down. but, it seems, they want to be able to use any and every permutation of torrent themselves! cant have one without the other! then there is the IP evidence that is definitely right when used by them against others but far from being definitely right when used by others against them. strange that, eh??

    now let's get to the 'we are going to sue everyone that downloads illegally' part...!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zos (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:44am

    I saw this on torrentfreak the other day...what jumps out at me is the lack of sourcing.

    now i would guess that since everyone mentions that these are STATIC ip addy's registered to the various orgs and domains that someone took a list and started comparing it against swarm data. that would be my assumption.


    but we all know what happens when you assume. So what's up techdirt, who's compiling a database of swarm IP's that these are being run against?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      icon
      average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:49am

      Re:

      what jumps out at me is the lack of sourcing.

      Mike doesn't use sources or do other basic things that journalists do when they want to be taken seriously. Mike wants the world to take him seriously, don't get me wrong, but he doesn't want to do the work to earn that sort of respect. He prefers citing TorrentFreak and leaving all the FUD sitting there for his minions to let their imaginations run wild over. Just look at the foaming-at-the-mouth idiots lapping it up in the comments. Mike's resigned himself to catering to the criminal masses rather than using his intellect for better purposes. It's sad, really.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:16am

        Re: Re:

        You assume people who read this blog are participating in piracy. I buy all my content through legitimate channels.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:53am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Lots and lots of commenters here don't engage in or condone piracy. I'm one of them. AJ, however, is a transparent troll who accuses everyone of being pirates in a feeble attempt to get angry responses. I don't think he believes a large portion of what he says.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Leigh Beadon (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            AJ, however, is a transparent troll who accuses everyone of being pirates in a feeble attempt to get angry responses. I don't think he believes a large portion of what he says.

            That's giving him a lot of credit. The reality is much worse: AJ is a mediocre law student who believes everything he says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
               
              icon
              average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 10:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Is that the best you got?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Machin Shin (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 10:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "law student who believes everything he says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff."

              Isn't that just a basic part of being a crooked lawyer? Being able to believe your own lies wholeheartedly even when they go against other lies you hold onto.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
           
          icon
          average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 10:17am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You assume people who read this blog are participating in piracy. I buy all my content through legitimate channels.

          I'm sure some people who read this blog don't pirate. Myself, for example. But obviously Mike caters the pro-piracy crowd.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            John Fenderson (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 10:44am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            But obviously Mike caters the pro-piracy crowd.


            You keep saying this, but you've yet to provide anything like evidence. Nice touch, by the way, slipping the "obviously" into a statement of opinion to make it seem more like a statement of fact.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Rikuo (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 11:44am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm sure some people who read this blog don't infringe on copyright in any way shape or form (despite the fact that the way modern copyright laws are written, it is physically impossible, short of hiding in a cave with your eyes shut, cotton wool in your ears and your fingers in Chinese finger traps to prevent the use of instruments to make any kind of speech, to not violate CP). Myself, I'm both. I pirate some, and yet, just this Christmas, I spent a fortune on Steam games. But obviously, Average_Joe caters to the "Me no listen to logic" crowd.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
               
              icon
              average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 11:54am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I don't think "look at all the legal things I do" is a defense to the illegal things you do, but that appears to be adequate rationalization for you.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Rikuo (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 12:31pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Here's some logic.

                I am a copyright infringer and proud of it. I've got multiple terabytes of content on my computer that infringes.

                I am also a customer. Just counting installed PC games, I have 784 gigabytes worth of games bought and paid for (there are more games stored on my hard drives that are paid for but not installed).

                Now, let's say I become a target of a copyright lawsuit and I lose. What happens? I become indentured to pay off the resulting fine for the rest of my life (thanks to statutory damages), but I also swear off purchasing anything copyrighted as well. The copyright industry, in trying to control what physically cannot be controlled in the 21st Century, will have lost a willing customer.
                This is what is called the practical train of thought. You sound like you go for the ideological train of thought, but in having defended the MPAA so vigorously in the article with the evidence of infringement on their own computers, you've lost all claim to being ideological.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                   
                  icon
                  average_joe (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 1:09pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I am a copyright infringer and proud of it. I've got multiple terabytes of content on my computer that infringes.

                  You and Mike should exchange phone numbers.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Rikuo (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 1:13pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You did exactly what I fully expected you to do. You completely ignored everything else I wrote, and then proceeded to imply that Mike is also a copyright infringer (which, by simple common sense, he must be, since its impossible in today's world not to be).

                    *slow clap*

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    JMT (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 4:04pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Ironic that you repeatedly accuse Mike of not debating you, and yet refuse to discuss any of the points Rikuo just made. I suspect you just can't, because you know how right he is, so you just resort to a dismissive ad hom. You are hypocrisy personified.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:09pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "I don't think "look at all the legal things I do" is a defense to the illegal things you do, but that appears to be adequate rationalization for you."

                You use it waas well, boy, to defend the DoJ employees who violate the laws they're supposed to enforce!

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 3:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You may have a point there, but bad laws are a very good reason to ignore the law.

                Specially if the law makes everything against the law.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "I'm sure some people who read this blog don't pirate. Myself, for example. But obviously Mike caters the pro-piracy crowd."

            Burgers?
            Pizza?
            Chinese food?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 3:05pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Well anybody who doesn't share your point of view caters to pirates, right?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 7:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Hold on, you actually "read this blog"? From your postings all I could glean is that you marginally spout the headline and call everybody else a pirate, but I suppose if you want to pass that off as "reading" I won't stop you...

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:32am

        Re: Re:

        It's sad, really.Compared to being sad enough to troll the person you imagine day in and day out? You're now getting to the stage of being Aqua's Barbi Girl - a tune that was annoying and pointless the first time you heard it but now, by dint of being everywhere all the time, has become meaningless noise as well as being so agravating you'd be tempted to grab the nearest heavy object to hand if you ever saw one of the performers.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Rikuo (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 11:40am

        Re: Re:

        I'm sorry Joe, but did you call me a criminal? I must have mis-heard you, I was too busy going over the 200+ euros worth of games I've bought this Xmas on Steam.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:11pm

        Re: Re:

        "Mike doesn't use sources or do other basic things that journalists do when they want to be taken seriously."

        He just links to the sources, whcih is far more than you do, boy.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Zos (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:31pm

        Re: Re:

        odd that you see things that way, i consistently find the stories to be well researched, well linked with sources, and usually easily googleable.


        and as i mentioned, this issue isn't something necessarily from techdirt, they didn't break it, and were really only repeating the information that was in the torrentfreak article with a bit of polish. I only asked because i figured it was an obvious question more likely to get answered here.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Zos (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 2:35pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          oh. and i'll cop to being a pirate. Various artists have made about a grand from me and my wife this year, directly, into their pocket at various shows, concerts and, conventions. Zombie gatekeeper industry's haven't made a dime from me. The only thing they've got coming is the sound of my feet dancing on their grave.

          Mc lars says it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o0W8CjFz0I

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:20am

      Re:

      who's compiling a database of swarm IP's that these are being run against
      If you follow the linked-back article, the answer appears to be:
      The folks over at TorrentFreak teamed up with BitTorrent monitoring firm Scaneye to look and see if files being shared via BitTorrent happened to be coming from some IP addresses held by the big Hollywood studios
      So your answer is "The BitTorrent monitoring firm, Scaneye."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:46am

    We are becoming a nation with a two tier justice system. The high and low level of justice once seen back in the Medieval days.

    If you are part of the high class (read what was once royalty) then you are held to different levels of punitive damage than the low (or poor).

    It an be seen here that in house is not the same as for everyone else.

    It can be seen with the dealings between the SEC and bankers. Such as the HSBC fiasco, where HSBC was dealing with drug cartels, laundering money, and dealing with terrorists. Any of those charges get the lower class in jail for years. HSBC got a fine the equivalent of 1 month's profit after doing such business for years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 8:56am

    Like the bandmate from the Who busted with child porn, the DOJ swarm is only for research.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:12am

    If you were charged for downloading a file made available by the justice department, would that be considered entrapment?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:55am

      Re:

      No.

      If nobody talked you into doing something you likely wouldn't have done normally, it's not entrapment even if police enable your actions.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 1:30pm

        Re: Re:

        If you know the justice department is making it available, can't you honestly argue you thought it was from a legitimate source?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 3:11pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You could try, but the current bias in the courts and law enforcement would give you a hard time with that.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:56am

      Re:

      Nope, because they didn't know about the file, honest, Your Honor!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 9:50am

    how do you know when OOTB and AJ are losing their stupid arguments? they accuse others of wrong doing, they try to defend the hypocrites in the entertainment industries and law enforcement who are caught doing the same thing they are accusing others of doing, but reckon that's different, then they piss off completely!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Fin, Dec 27th, 2012 @ 6:09pm

    @Michael Long

    "I just did a block check, and the 192.58 prefix doesn't appear to be used by the US. http://www.nirsoft.net/countryip/us.html

    It's not a spoof, it's a fabrication."


    Look here, you computer illiterate fool.
    https://www.countryipblocks.net/

    And take your words and stick them where the sun don't shine.
    http://i.imgur.com/kyg00.png

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    AgentX, Dec 28th, 2012 @ 6:58am

    Looking at those 3 examples

    I doubt DOJ would even throw the book at Kim Dot Too Fat for those downloads. 1 is not even a show (it's an aftershow), another is a broadcast show someone could watch on Hulu, and third was a bad movie. They're not exactly download Beetles albums here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This