Even better. The point is that yes, SOME laptops (hint -- not every laptop is a Dull) have a physical hardwired switch to turn off the WiFi (antenna or radio).
My Toshiba Satellite has a hard wired switch which disconnects the built-in WiFi antenna.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
All we need to do now is scale up to sharks.
Indeed. This article is a Slashvertisement.
Really? It seems to me that Seward is in Alaska, not Tennessee.
I'm a bit surprised. I always thought that the New Madrid quakes in the early 1810s were rated 8+.
See, it's attitudes like this that hurt artists...
I mean, if we don't keep extending copyright, how can we encourage Elvis to keep singing new music?
P2P Killed Elvis!!!!
Outside of downtown? Not a frickin' chance.
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".
Yep. It's the Wormface base
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 .
That's why I get my crypto from SETEC Astronomy