So I need to understand the parameters of his claim. Is he stating that no one downloaded a French film in France? Or is it Europe or the world?
I am a French Film fan and I am not saying that I have ever downloaded a pirated film from torrents or any other infringing method but I am saying that if his claim is that no one downloaded French films illegally during that time frame anywhere in the world I know to a certainty that he is wrong and suspect he is full of crap to boot.
"During the course of arguments the issue was raised as to the difficulty of effecting disclosure given that so much material is in electronic format."
Now I am no lawyer but I have had some experience with the law and trial and I do not recall disclosure as being an optional legal obligation or premise and even if it was would the excuse "that it is too difficult" be acceptable? I think not.
But then I also thought that if in fact their evidence is so hard to find then does not that undermine their argument that MU was facilitating copyright infringement on a massive scale? Because if government prosecutors with all the data analysts they have working for them cannot find the evidence quickly, how then did the average uneducated internet end user find it?
I agree with the Mike's overall opinion that at the end of the day it is very likely that the DOJ will use this to justify further cyber laws that undermine privacy and freedom on the net but what else can be done?
The media reports on the Megaupload arrests verbatim from the press release for the DOJ and the media (controlled by the MPAA et al) never even question the allegations.
Megaupload is tried and convicted in the media already the actual legal process will be no more than a formality. The feds a have a very high conviction rate and so they will most likely win their case in court.
"Tell that to all the vapid, quasi-soulless rehashes that are being released this year: two variants of Snow White, another vampire fanwank and another Transformers film.
99% of the movie content is a repost of a rehash of a repost."
This is I believe a common misconception. While I am no fan of all the over the top action and remakes that are pumped out of Hollywood these days to say that terrible, over-produced, over hyped and over promoted content is 99% of what Hollywood is producing these days is not only inaccurate it is an unjust judgment that demands defense.
While the big money makers are indeed the big films that are so often terrible remakes and/or the never ending sequel cookie cutter approach, the motion picture industry (and visual media in general) has expanded so much in the last 20 years that now those big "block busters" are a very small percentage of all the media and movies that are being produced.
Simply put there are a hell of a lot more movies and shows being made every year than there was 20 years ago and even 20 years ago (and since the inception of the industry really) there were crappy movies being made with the intent of appealing to the masses and getting that big paycheck.
So while much of the great media being produced now may not be promoted that does not mean it is not being made and from what I can see more good movies are being made now than back in the "golden age" of cinema simply because they can be produced for less money than they could in the "good old days"
Used to be that most of television was crap. Now shows like Breaking Bad, Shameless, etc... are being made and I for one am thankful for it.
So while I do not support the MPAA, RIAA et al I do respect much of the hard work being done in the media industry and beyond respect, frankly I enjoy it was well.
That is to say the legislation was so overboard that when they come back to the table and "compromise" violating our rights and censoring our net will seem like they have done us a favor.
End of the day I am just pessimistic enough to see that people that propose things like SOPA never quit, they cannot. They must control and eventually they always win because they have no moral compass and no sense of decency and because they are always right and the ends always justify the means.
That said this is at least good news of a delay of the inevitable.
My understanding of the article is that she was/is a TSA security agent working at an airport not an undercover agent of the CIA, FBI, DEA etc... that would be put in grave danger by her identity being known.
Now if the victim had published her address phone number etc... in some misguided call for revenge I would agree but there is no protections afforded for rank and file law enforcement, their names are on their uniforms for a reason. We as citizens have a right to know who they are.