Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Righthaven (Score 1) 67

What is right wing about filing a lawsuit to unmask a doe, suing that person, then settling for a much smaller amount. It seems this is used by many different trolls, and likely doesn't have any political ideology behind it. It is sleazy though. Filing a lawsuit with the intention of settling just to get a payout is wrong. It is short circuiting the justice system for personal profit.

Yeah that's neither right nor left, it's the universal language of greedy bloodsuckers.

Comment Re:Righthaven (Score 3, Interesting) 67

What is right wing about that process? The Democrats support the movie industry, not the Republicans.

The fact that Democrats support something doesn't negate the possibility of something being right wing. The Democrats are not ideologically pure, or ideologically homogenous, and very few of them can be considered "left".

To me, pretending that copyright is only about property rights, and ignoring the fact that copyright was also supposed to be about free speech and about making material available for free to the public after a limited time, is definitely "right wing".

Comment Re:DMCA needs to die (Score 1) 67

This has nothing to do with the DMCA, this is a straight out copyright infringement lawsuit being filed. The real problem is that the methods the copyright holders (or the copyright enforcement goons acting on their behalf) are using to identify torrent users aren't good enough and its good to see at least one judge willing to call these enforcers out on it.

Exactly. Would have been nice for judges to start doing this 11 years ago, but glad they've come around.

Submission + - All Malibu Media subpoenas in Eastern District NY put on hold

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: A federal Magistrate Judge in Central Islip, New York, has just placed all Malibu Media subpoenas in Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island, and Staten Island on hold indefinitely, due to "serious questions" raised by a motion to quash (PDF) filed in one of them. Judge Steven Locke's 4-page Order and Decision (PDF) cited the defendant's arguments that "(i) the common approach for identifying allegedly infringing BitTorrent users, and thus the Doe Defendant, is inconclusive; (ii) copyright actions, especially those involving the adult film industry, are susceptible to abusive litigation practices; and (iii) Malibu Media in particular has engaged in abusive litigation practices" as being among the reasons for his issuance of the stay.

Comment Re: That's only for Google-Brand Nexus devices (Score 1) 80

I find it funny you think your vendors are somehow required to push updates to your device. They're not.

Next time before you buy, check the support list of a custom ROM.

Don't buy any no-name chinese crapware, then install some other custom Android OS, and be done with it.

Vendors are definitely not required to push updates, but they probably should be. It is pretty irresponsible for vendors to continue selling phones with known vulnerabilities, or ignoring vulnerabilities and not offering patches.

This is not unlike an automobile firm allwoing known safety related flaws in their cars to persist because it is too expensive to fix them. I'm looking at you GM. In this case the "safety" flaws are not life threatening, but are a threat to our privacy and security. The recent StageFright bug is a good example. This flaw not only compromised the usability of the device, but potentially compromised users banking and credit information. Plenty of phones will NEVER get patched and users will continue to use these shitty, vulnerable devices.

This is partially Google's fault for making Android so mutable; it's crazy hard and expensive for manufacturers to keep up with patches and there's no incentive for them to do so. That's not an excuse for us not to hold them responsible. We certainly expect our cars to not explode in our faces throwing metal shards into our eyes and thorax. We should hold phone makers to the same standard. We should expect that known security flaws will be patched and not ignored.

Will this increase the cost of phones? Probably. But would you rather have a slightly more expensive handset that gets security updates, or use a phone that's woefully out of date. If you are in the latter category, you're probably reading this in Internet Explorer 5 on Windows XP and in for a shock when you open your retirement account and find a balance of $0.00. Or worse -$53,000.99.

Comment Re: Mostly pointless (Score 1) 80

You're better off installing Facebook and just putting a bookmark to the web page on your launcher.

+1 For you sir! is far superior to the shitey app. You can post pictures, message, and read all the wedding announcements and funny baby pictures without FailBook stealing your contact list, monitoring your location and generally being a douche. And to really put a cherry on top: it stops running when you're not using it! If you live and die by your FB messenger, this won't work for you, but if you actually want your phone to be a phone with some juice in the battery, this is the way forward!

Comment Re:settings menu (Score 1) 80

This is all great, but it's not exactly news. The most recent commit to that project is over six months old and the majority of the commits are from two years ago. I doubt it will work properly with KitKat or Lollipop. An alternative is Amplify. It isn't smart, but it does give you the power to suppress wakelocks at will. You can seriously børk up your phone with it, but that's all easily fixed.

Comment Re:Victory for common sense! (Score 1) 91

If other judges follow this precedent, it will be the death knell of civil litigation involving the internet in any way. I don't like how trolls do business, but I don't think changing the rules like this is a good idea overall.

This isn't changing the rules. This is following the rules.

See my article in the ABA's Judges Journal about how judges had been bending the rules for the RIAA. "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless: Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigation". The Judges' Journal, Judicial Division of American Bar Association. Summer 2008 edition, Part 1 of The Judges Journals' 2-part series, "Access to Justice".

Comment Re:Victory for common sense! (Score 1) 91

Remember, Malibu Media can just change venues too and start this all over again... This judge didn't do anything worth while for you and me and opened himself up to an appeal where he obviously will be slapped. About the only thing he accomplished is getting Malibu Media out of his courtroom and off his docket, for now. Nothing else will change.

I beg to differ.

Malibu Media can't choose the venue, or the judge.

If Judge Hellerstein's decision is followed by other judges, it will be the death knell of the present wave of Malibu Media litigation.

Comment Re:Victory for common sense! (Score 1) 91

I fully appreciate your perspective and I agree that the waters are getting pretty muddy when you start trying to tie an IP address to a person, but the issue here is the issuing of the subpoena and not letting Malibu Media pursue discovery. They must be allowed to protect their rights in civil court, and that means they must be allowed to subpoena third parties for information so they can move from "John Doe" to an actual name and in this case, that takes a subpoena from the court.

While your argument for discovery has some logic to it, it is based on a false assumption of fact : that Malibu Media, once it obtains the name and address of the internet account subscriber, will serve a subpoena on that person in an attempt to find out the name of the person who should be named as a defendant.

Malibu Media's uniform practice, once it gets the name and address, is to immediately amend the complaint to name the subscriber as the infringer/defendant and then serve a summons and amended complaint, not a subpoena, on the subscriber.

This is in every single case .

Comment Re:Victory for common sense! (Score 1) 91

I'm not so sure I agree that this make sense...

You didn't read the judges 11 page opinion then, where he makes his reasons very clear. Among other things, the trolls claim that they need the information to take people to court, but they never do; they just abuse the courts as a cheap way to get information for their blackmail scheme. The point that an IP is not an ID is exactly the point here, because the copyright troll wouldn't have any right to the name of anyone than the copyright infringer. And the fine judge found out that these copyright trolls have in several instances just ignored court orders and have just lied to the courts.

Well said

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.