Don't I wish.

A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'.

An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission?

A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there.

And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher. :)

Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )

Gotta keep their prices secure from someone who might try and steal 'em, you know.

I once got asked a question which I found hurtful and offensive, and felt tempted to 'blow up' the interview at that point. Fortunately, I resisted the temptation. As it turns out, the question was his way of introducing the next thing, which was telling me that he was offering me the job.

To ensure system security, install this software on the system.

Then unplug all cables from it that would allow usage of the system by anyone ever, because you cannot ensure the system is secure while users still have access to it.

With respect to point 3, they shouldn't be allowing that. (And, in fact, a quick test on attempting to create accounts that are distinct solely by addition/removal of periods shows that they don't. It even mentions in the message rejecting the address that they do this.)

As far as sloppy typing, well, the only real solution to this is moving to a firstname.lastname.randomstring@gmail.com email address. The odds that someone has a similar name to you and picks a random string that's somehow relevant to them and has similar relevance to you such that you would pick it as well, are quite a bit lower than simply relying on the vagaries of what your parents thought it would be cute to call you.

No, it says that the cardinality of the sets of trials that meet those outcomes is the same. There's a difference between the two, which basically only comes up in probability at infinity.

It's the same difference as the one that states that the probability of choosing any real number at random is 0, even though obviously if you're choosing a real number at random one of them must come up.

For what it's worth, GMail treats all e-mail addresses that are identical other than dots as the same e-mail address internally, so j.dunce@gmail.com, jdunce@gmail.com, jd.unce@gmail.com, and j.d.u.n.c.e@gmail.com are all going to be the same account.

I've noticed that forum spammers like to use that trick to get around "each account must have a unique e-mail" settings on certain types of forum software.

Here's my report on the actual ruling which is being reviewed: 2nd Circuit affirms denial of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion in WNET v Aereo

I guess it would take a litigator to notice this, but it's quite unusual that a preliminary injunction denial would be getting this kind of appellate attention.

In the first place, it was unusual for an interlocutory appeal to be granted from the denial of the preliminary injunction motion. In federal court usually you can only appeal from a final judgment.

Similarly, apart from the fact that it's always rare for a certiorari petition to be granted, it's especially tough where the appeal is not from a final judgment, but just from a preliminary injunction denial which does not dispose of the whole case.

Funny, I had the same reaction when I read it. He seemed like a salesman for Google or something.

Dear Prince Bernard, If you're talking about my bank account, you're barking up the wrong tree :)

Fair use cases are very fact specific. If you start monkeying with the facts, Judge Chin might not feel the same way about it.

I don't know but please hire me as your lawyer when you do.

Thatswhatappealscourtsarefor