One of the job requirements for a law enforcement officer is the ability to know the difference between bitchiness and illegality. Another requirement is the ability to control one's anger --- especially since a lot of their job is arresting people who don't.
The discussion here suffers greatly because of inexact language: people using the word "privacy" when what is actually meant is "anonymity".
People in public places (should) have no expectation of privacy. What some people do have is an expectation of anonymity. This is because, even 10 years ago, it was not practical for an average person to identify a stranger, even given a photograph of him or her.
This is no longer true, and therefore older people's expectations are out of phase with reality. Unfortunately, (some) people believe this can be "fixed" via legislating a new reality.
I predict this will work just as well as legislating in order to fix broken business models.
Although the expressive aspect of the conduct alleged here – the posting of copyrighted movies to BitTorrent – is somewhat minimal, that does not mean that discovery to identify the anonymous user without adequate initial evidence that individual Doe Defendants committed the alleged infringement.
Methinks a verb went missing there, although from context it's pretty clear what they meant.
As opposed to crawling out from under a rock and posting on Techdirt? Your post shows how little you actually understand the legal reality of what happened...
BTW, the most important thing he did (which you missed --- perhaps because of a blind spot?) was probably this: he made a lot of friends (not necessarily close personal ones) and gained a lot of respect.
What's even more disingenuous about the MPAA's brief is that it argues that deciding if material is infringing is "too much work" for rightsholders, while we all know that they have argued in other cases that deciding if material is infringing isn't "too much work" for others (e.g., Google).
I have the distinct impression that uninvited amicus briefs are hardly ever "impartial" in the colloquial sense of "disinterested" (I suppose Lord Justice Salmon meant the word in a different, legal sense, as in "not sharing a direct interest with either party of the case").
Er, Gina (if that is really you)... PACER seems to indicate that the MPAA filed for permission to file that amicus brief on 10-May-2013. So you seem to be getting ahead of yourself.
I'm waiting patiently to see that brief (and hopefully be the first one to upload it to RECAP).
The guy who supposedly proposed the "Don't be evil" motto was an engineer, who, in my opinion, meant it to include a good wallop of pragmatism and humor.
Calling it "Do no evil" totally misrepresents the elegance of the actual phrase...
> that would be stupid if it wasn't fruit of sheer corruption from the MAFIAA.
I think you meant to say "that is stupid because it is the fruit of sheer corruption from the MAFIAA". Just because we all understand why it's stupid, doesn't make it less stupid.
That's not what the dissent in Aereo says, Mike. Judge Chin said that Aereo was different than Cablevision such that Aereo couldn't seek safe harbor in the Cablevision decision.
Unfortunately true. Chin makes the probably correct point that Congress, in its lobby-blinded cluelessness, went out of its way to define "transmit" to "include all conceivable forms and combinations of wires and wireless communications media, including but by no means limited to radio and television broadcasting as we know them".
> The fact that that makes no sense should tell you that it's wrong.
I agree with you there, probably because the things that we are thinking are wrong are totally different. You didn't mean "copyright law", by any chance?
In the first-sale rights ruling, the judge ruled that it's perfectly OK to sell your digital download along with the storage media to which you originally saved. Unfortunately, it is trivial, when you decide to resell your content, to copy the file or files you want to sell to any sufficiently old flash drive or card, in such a way that the resulting media is indistinguishable from the result of having downloaded those files directly to the media.
Hey, suddenly all those old, relatively-tiny-capacity flash drives will become useful again!
> BUT must be done in a professional, methodical way
Unfortunately, just being accused of possessing child porn is more or less a social "game over". It's a shame that most people aren't technologically adept enough to understand that in this era of ubiquitous computing (and therefore, ubiquitous vulnerabilities), almost everyone could end up being (wrongly) accused. Personally, I'd back legislation that requires all investigations of such crimes to be "under seal", and which would severely limit the punishment for the crime if "somehow" this required secrecy was botched during the investigation (yes, I know that's not optimal, but I cannot think of any other way to motivate law enforcement properly).
It's "law" enforcement, not "non-bitchiness" enforcement
One of the job requirements for a law enforcement officer is the ability to know the difference between bitchiness and illegality. Another requirement is the ability to control one's anger --- especially since a lot of their job is arresting people who don't.
Obligatory
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30
Privacy vs. anonymity
The discussion here suffers greatly because of inexact language: people using the word "privacy" when what is actually meant is "anonymity".
People in public places (should) have no expectation of privacy. What some people do have is an expectation of anonymity. This is because, even 10 years ago, it was not practical for an average person to identify a stranger, even given a photograph of him or her.
This is no longer true, and therefore older people's expectations are out of phase with reality. Unfortunately, (some) people believe this can be "fixed" via legislating a new reality.
I predict this will work just as well as legislating in order to fix broken business models.
Re:
> and give the US whatever it wants.
Laws? Probably. Enforcement? Unlikely.
Re: Too bad for Him
> Moreover, all of this weaseling in NZ can't help
> Kim when it comes to facing the US courts.
Ah, so you admit that the US court system is so corrupt that the outcome is determined even before trial? How forthright of you!
Missing verb
Re:
Arguments from authority are almost as weak as arguments from ad hominem (i.e., linking her to **AAs).
In this particular case, neither is significant, given the circus surrounding Prenda, and the preponderance of decisions against joinder.
Re: Far easier ways...
Your advice seems to ignore the relative ubiquity of surveillance cameras. Or did I miss something?
Re:
As opposed to crawling out from under a rock and posting on Techdirt? Your post shows how little you actually understand the legal reality of what happened...
BTW, the most important thing he did (which you missed --- perhaps because of a blind spot?) was probably this: he made a lot of friends (not necessarily close personal ones) and gained a lot of respect.
Re: Deadrop
> something real
Of course he thought it was real (as in, currently a legal reality), why do you think he was so careful not to infringe?
> and physical
Now you're letting your stupidity show.
Re: Re: Re:
Or, possibly, will be after they finish their terms in Congress.
ooops
Ah, now I see that the MPAA filed the brief as an appendix to its request, which seems to be standard operating procedure.
Its brief, as expected, is chock full of hypocrisy.
MPAA is a member of HypAA (Hypocritial Assoc of America)
What's even more disingenuous about the MPAA's brief is that it argues that deciding if material is infringing is "too much work" for rightsholders, while we all know that they have argued in other cases that deciding if material is infringing isn't "too much work" for others (e.g., Google).
"Impartially"?
I have the distinct impression that uninvited amicus briefs are hardly ever "impartial" in the colloquial sense of "disinterested" (I suppose Lord Justice Salmon meant the word in a different, legal sense, as in "not sharing a direct interest with either party of the case").
Re:
Er, Gina (if that is really you)... PACER seems to indicate that the MPAA filed for permission to file that amicus brief on 10-May-2013. So you seem to be getting ahead of yourself.
I'm waiting patiently to see that brief (and hopefully be the first one to upload it to RECAP).
"Don't be evil", not "Do no evil"
The guy who supposedly proposed the "Don't be evil" motto was an engineer, who, in my opinion, meant it to include a good wallop of pragmatism and humor.
Calling it "Do no evil" totally misrepresents the elegance of the actual phrase...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> that would be stupid if it wasn't fruit of sheer corruption from the MAFIAA.
I think you meant to say "that is stupid because it is the fruit of sheer corruption from the MAFIAA". Just because we all understand why it's stupid, doesn't make it less stupid.
Re:
Unfortunately true. Chin makes the probably correct point that Congress, in its lobby-blinded cluelessness, went out of its way to define "transmit" to "include all conceivable forms and combinations of wires and wireless communications media, including but by no means limited to radio and television broadcasting as we know them".
> The fact that that makes no sense should tell you that it's wrong.
I agree with you there, probably because the things that we are thinking are wrong are totally different. You didn't mean "copyright law", by any chance?
These kinds of judgments seem to be the new rage
> If it's that simple to get round
This judgment reminds me of this other recent one. Both of them are trivial to tracelessly workaround.
In the first-sale rights ruling, the judge ruled that it's perfectly OK to sell your digital download along with the storage media to which you originally saved. Unfortunately, it is trivial, when you decide to resell your content, to copy the file or files you want to sell to any sufficiently old flash drive or card, in such a way that the resulting media is indistinguishable from the result of having downloaded those files directly to the media.
Hey, suddenly all those old, relatively-tiny-capacity flash drives will become useful again!
Re: Re:
> BUT must be done in a professional, methodical way
Unfortunately, just being accused of possessing child porn is more or less a social "game over". It's a shame that most people aren't technologically adept enough to understand that in this era of ubiquitous computing (and therefore, ubiquitous vulnerabilities), almost everyone could end up being (wrongly) accused. Personally, I'd back legislation that requires all investigations of such crimes to be "under seal", and which would severely limit the punishment for the crime if "somehow" this required secrecy was botched during the investigation (yes, I know that's not optimal, but I cannot think of any other way to motivate law enforcement properly).