Getting things in a state that they're repeatable is step one and it very much sounds like you dont have that. Using a combination of VM and deployment technologies (like puppet) will both give you a safe sandbox to work in and careful change management. Once you have that the rest should fall into place much easier (disaster recovery, upgrade management, etc are much simpler).
Been using it for a month now as both a Google Voice user and someone who has GV in not-a-gmail-dot-com email address (i.e. my own domain).
Fi won't allow you to use a non-gmail-dot-com email address, period, and this makes things even a bit weirder (and I couldn't really port my GV number to Fi anyway for that reason).
That said, the base service itself runs REALLY well--switching between networks works nearly flawlessly (and there are definite times AT&T drops and TMob kicks in). As the writer of the article states, if you don't use GV (and I'll add do use a @gmail.com address normally), you're golden.
Oh, and you can't forward your GV number to Fi either (I had to forward to a "real" phone, then back to Fi. Works, but kludgy).
They'll get it together and it'll be fine. In the meantime, this early adopter had to jump through some hurdles and that's OK. If you're an existing GV user and can't cope with weird, don't bother with Fi until they get it fixed up.
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".
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.
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 .
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.
There's apparently a blanket rule against using the court system to conduct fishing expeditions.
If so, most judges have been unaware of it these past 10 years.
Hi Ray, nice to see the NYCL moniker around here again. I have a few questions if you're willing. First, you indicate that a judge has denied discovery due to several factors, one being that an IP address does not identify any particular individual. Can you speak to the weight or breadth of this specific Court's opinion here, in layman's terms? I see references to the Eastern and Southern districts of New York, might this decision influence cases outside of those jurisdictions?
It's not binding on anyone. But Judge Hellerstein is a very well respected judge, so it will probably have a lot of 'persuasive authority'.
Second, this business of "if the Motion Picture is considered obscene, it may not be eligible for copyright protection." I've read about certain cases where the Court stated that obscenity has no rigid definition, but "I'll know it when I see it." Does that have any bearing on the Malibu case? Was this some kind of completely outrageous pornography, where any community standard would likely find it to be obscene, or was it just run-of-the-mill porn? Would it matter either way? Would the opinion have likely been the same if the case involved a blockbuster Hollywood film instead of a pornographic and potentially obscene film?
I haven't researched that question yet, and I may well be litigating that issue in the near future, since I have several cases against Malibu Media which are now in litigation mode... so all I can say is, stay tuned.
Lastly, I'm curious whether or not you've kept up with developments in the case regarding Prenda Law, and how you might compare this case to that one, if at all. I try to read Ken White's PopeHat blog every once in awhile to see how poorly the Prenda copyright trolls are faring. It doesn't look good for Prenda, and I wonder if you would put Malibu in the same proverbial boat.
The Prenda people are a bunch of strange people who, based on reports I've read, may well wind up doing jail time. I know nothing about the Malibu Media people. If I did find out something really bad about them in would probably wind up in my court papers if relevant to the case or to their credibility.
I should clarify: I didn't mean actual expansion of the law. What I meant in regard to item "F" was: since when does difficulty of enforcement, even if they did prove it, justify loosening the standards of evidence? I did not think that was allowable.
Well I knew exactly what you meant Jane, even before you 'clarified' it.
Hi, NYCL! I haven't noticed you around here much lately. Is item F even a thing? Since when does the difficulty of enforcing a law allow judicial expansion of the law? I thought that idea had been thoroughly buried a long time ago.
I have to agree with you Jane Q. For 10 years I've been trying to wake the courts up to the fact that they're not supposed to bend the law to help content owners just because the content owners don't know who committed the infringement. Glad to see them coming around.
I think that if this troll can prove they have a copyright on the material and the right to enforce it, they will have a good case to appeal this decision and it will likely be overturned.
You also have to prove that the person you're suing actually committed the infringement. It's not enough that they paid the bill for an internet service account that somebody used to commit an infringement.
My take is that those that are truly successful in CompSci have both a love of the utility that computers have AND the escapism that they enable through games and play generally.
Back when I was 8 or so, I had my first exposure to video games at the hotel we happened to be staying at in Anaheim outside of Disneyland. Asteroids, mostly. I was hooked. Within the next 2 years, I'd found a way to buy my first computer (a used Tandy Model 1 with tape drive--yep, like I said, I'm old). I whiled away my afternoons loading games off of tape and editing their sources to figure out how to cheat at them.
Later I traded up to a Commodore 64, then a Mac SE, and HyperCard got me through high school (along with a very early Casio graphing calculator). I wrote little games, demos, and all kinds of other mostly-worthless junk in BASIC and HyperTalk. I wasn't a particularly great student (in particular, I was spectacularly lazy), but I got a fair start learning the first three of what I call the five basic CS topics:
By the end of HS:
1. Substitution - Using variables in place of concrete values
2. Iteration - things like for...next loops
3. Problem Decomposition - breaking things down into component parts like functions/subs/whatever
Not until later:
4. Object-Orientation - binding data with its associated configuration (aka code to everyone else)
5. Recursion - writing routines that call themselves and enable decent into hierarchies
(Feel free to argue whether things like algorithm analysis, data structures, state machines, and whatnot are separate or fall into these categories--the reader obviously knows how I feel about it)
So by the time I was done with high school, and almost entirely without any kind of formal training, I was decently grounded in 1-3 mostly on my love of video games as a motivator. Soon after, however, my ridiculous lazy streak kicked in, and you really can't get to advanced topics while being profoundly lazy. I got to university and had my proverbial ass handed to me--brick walled on differential equations, too lazy to write anything of any substance, and what killed me utterly was that it was clear I had no clue how to sell my ideas to others and make them a reality (thanks to the Intel internal bureaucracy for that).
"I like computers, but if I don't play games, then computers become entirely work and then I won't like computers anymore."
It wasn't just about productivity and efficiency anymore, and it wasn't about being a timesuck and an escape, either; it was about maintaining moderate motivation--to love computers for both their own utility AND for the entertainment value of loving a good hack and getting sucked into a different world. Both, not either by themselves, and they're not mutually-exclusive.
I eventually restarted my college career and graduated with my CompSci bachelor's from San Jose State in 2008--16 years after starting at Arizona State in 1992. But I was motivated by BOTH a love of computers for their utility AND that escape into another world. At the end, I was named SJSU CompSci's 2008 Graduating Senior of the Year, was a Software Engineer for a while, and now run a team of incredible software engineers. And I still hack code almost daily (silly management responsibilities get in the way sometimes, though).
What's the story, then? Motivation in moderation. If you see computers too much as a tool, you can't maintain your motivation on will alone (though it will take you decently far). If you see computers entirely as entertainment, you can't maintain your motivation on that either. The trick is to balance the two and maintain your love of tech from both angles.
Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell