Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Thanks for this, NYCL! (Score 1) 67

I did read the post, the article and also several of the legal document that undergird this entire thing. I agree that there is ZERO basis for the suit in the first place, as there is no connection between the ip and the person. But I also note that several courts have allowed cases to proceed despite all of that, which is what I apparently am incapable of articulating in a way that resonates with anyone but me. So, I apologize for deigning to imagine that I could grasp the complexities here, and will return to my lurking, never to thank anyone for anything here ever again, since apparently l am not nearly as clever as I thought.

Comment Re:Thanks for this, NYCL! (Score 1) 67

I think we're agreeing on the same thing, just in different ways.. :)

To this point, it seems like many courts in the past have accepted at face value that there is SOME linkage between an IP address and a person, so unless this one MJs decision becomes binding or is made a precedent across more than the EDNY, wouldn't the next logical question be to ask what actually constitutes illegal file sharing?

In other words, if some other court somewhere accepts (seemingly without any actual evidence) that there is a link between and Joe Smith, but ALSO notes that mere possession of a file fragment does not constitute an action for which relief may be granted, doesn't it moot the suit anyway?

Comment Re:Thanks for this, NYCL! (Score 1) 67

Yes, totally agree, but also thinking that the net result may still be that the standard of what constitutes a tort (and again, IANAL, I just enjoy this sort of thing, so please forgive me if I'm using incorrect or imprecise language) in the case of file sharing might be shaped by the larger question of who may be sued.

If a file fragment is not enough to sustain an action against a downloader, wouldn't that also raise a 12(6)(b) question?

Comment Re:Thanks for this, NYCL! (Score 1) 67

No doubt that the potential liability here is truly epic.

As to the profit side of the equation, I'm not really sure how that's quantifiable, since there is no real way of knowing what their potential income could have been absent the ability to get their content for free.

I mean, I can admit freely that I've been a beneficiary of free content over the years, and the hundreds of dollars I've NOT spent are certainly small potatoes in a vacuum, but multiply me by a few million and that suddenly real money.

All that said, I'd certainly never disagree publicly with a /. member with a nearly 3-digit member #, considering I'm a damn /. elder statesman with my low 6-digit one..:)

Comment Thanks for this, NYCL! (Score 2) 67

IANAL but I read court documents for fun (Sad, no?) via well-oilied PACER account, and this whole case has made for some very entertaining reading.

Regardless of the merits of the practices that Mailbu Media use, it's hard to see how the film industry as a whole (not just the adult version) can really survive if the standard of proof for infringement is a concrete connection to a specific user AND a requirement that the downloader receive a usable section of the overall file(s). One of the key points in the documents seem to be that the mere possession of a file fragment is not sufficient to rise to the level of an actionable tort is pretty telling, since that would require the court to make some sort of threshold for when a piece of an overall file becomes infringing.

Comment Re:Solution (Score 1) 4

Following up on the above, you don't need to use the Actiontec at all.. Just be sure to do a WAN side DHCP release and immediately unplug their router.. Put your own in its place and presto, you're done. As a bonus, most good routers out there will take either DD-WRT or Tomato firmwares, which have many nice options simply not available via the Actiontec one.

The Macintosh is Xerox technology at its best.