This article suggests that less strippers at industry events might lead to more women as colleagues. From a purely selfish point of view, that sounds good to me."
Link to Original Source
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
What kind of things are you observing?
P.S. I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your civility, too often exchanges in the comment section of these posts degenerate into rudeness.
It wasn't exactly ex parte now was it.
No it was not. I made the mistake of assuming that it was - as it has been so many times before. On a real read-through I see that due process has been respected.
I am simply touchy because (and jumped to conclusions) because I am seriously concerned about the way copyright infringement over the Internet seems to be (in many other cases) a magical incantation that releases a plaintiff (and judge) from all normal procedural responsibilities.
I really worry about the erosion of the Bill of rights in a country where presidents openly embrace domestic spying, congress gives them a free pass, and the customs agency can simply decide to give itself unlimited powers of search and seizure against its own citizens to name just a few of the really worrisome trends.
The Bill of Rights is why America can call itself the Land of the Free, and I do not like to think that corporate desires to maintain monopolies might be impinging on it.
Sorry, where exactly in the ruling do you think the judge says they don't have an actionable case?
My mistake, I see the court rejected the personal jurisdiction argument of the amicus briefs. Sorry about getting that wrong.
So how about taking the time to give us your thoughts on why ex parte rulings are OK when copyright is involved, and how you believe this is different from the example I gave of the IRS searching everyone's home?
It's called "discovery." You don't have to prove your case to be allowed discovery. You just have to prove that you have an actionable case and that the pond you're fishing in has an appropriately narrow focus on the that case.
Exactly. Discovery is after you have proven an actionable case.
What is happening with Achte/Neunte (and with the RIAA John Does) is they do not in fact have an actionable case (for several reasons, and the judge in his ruling cites jurisdiction as being just one of them). This end-run around due process is a desperate attempt to make a case, a case that cannot be made without the state lending a helping hand.
As I said, it is like the IRS getting a search warrant for every house in your neighborhood because they are *pretty sure* that one of you is cheating on your taxes, and if they can just be allowed to search everyone's house, they will be able to say who it is.
The litigant generally accomplishes this by producing an expert who claims that the IP address and timestamp is usually sufficient to identify the account holder. Which is true.
a) it is not a reliable way to identify the account holder, but I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
b) The account holder is not necessarily the alleged infringer, and does not have any more liability the swimming club does for the actions of the thief in the example you gave.
Just as several people were present at the swim club and any of them could have been the thief, an indeterminate number of people could have been using the IP address that was assigned to the account and knowing the identity of the account holder does not bring one any closer to knowing the actual user of the IP at a point in time than the address of the swim club helps us know the identity of the members using it at any point in time.
c) The crux of the matter is the very point that your reply avoids: the point I made about the judge weighing Constitutionally guaranteed 5th and 14th amendment rights to due process on one hand, and using state powers (and money, because hearing the case costs money) to provide a plaintiff a shortcut in their investigation on the other.
Don't know where your "subsidize" comment comes in.
Subsidy was not the best choice of words, I will find better ones: for want of having a case to begin with, the plaintiffs are asking the court to help them make their case.
And that is wrong. Plaintiffs are supposed to bring a case that has sufficient merit before the judicial process begins. They are not supposed to use judicial process as a fishing expedition, hoping to find merit along the way.
I am continually amazed when people seem so eager to compromise fundamental aspects of the Bill of Rights (such as due process and protection from unreasonable search and seizure) over what is a relatively minor, non-criminal allegation.
Would you feel that it was reasonable for the Federal government to get a blanket search warrant allowing them to conduct a complete search of every paper in every house in your neighborhood (including yours) because they *suspect* that one of your neighbors has cheated on their taxes, and if they have a chance to go through everybody's papers they will surely turn up someone who has? Because that is what a ruling like this lays the groundwork for.
I'll say it again, it's not about privacy, because they really don't care who infringed, just that they can get their 50,000 pounds of flesh from John Doe 1 - 50,000.
I think it is probably not that, since the RIAA is not getting 50,000 pounds of flesh from very many John Does at all.
I have worked at a few industry associations, and it usually about undertaking highly visible, highly political actions in order to reassure the members of the relevancy of the trade association's existence. In many cases the industry players look to the association to take extreme potentially damaging positions that no one company would dare to to take on itself for fear of consumer lash-back.
The RIAA's motivations are complex.
Also it bears mentioning that this thread is not about the RIAA. It is about Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co KG.
And what is disturbing about the judge's decision is that he has placed the private interests of alien (non-American) legal person (corporation) above American citizens' Constitutionally guaranteed 5th and 14th amendment rights to due process. All Americans should be deeply concerned that the Bill of Rights is being steadily eroded for the benefit of corporate interests.
First you call the police. But if they don't help, you file a John Doe lawsuit and subpoena the pool for the identities of the other four members present. Then you speak to each one. And if you can figure out which one did it, you amend the lawsuit replacing John Doe with that individual.
That's how it's done. That's how it's been done since I don't know when. What makes you think the Internet should be any different?
What I find interesting about your example is that you seem to be making the assumption that a judge would let your case go to trial at all.
I think that if you tried to file civil suit against a John Doe for damages in your example, most judges would look at the fact that the police have either investigated or judged the case insufficiently substantive to merit an investigation, and demand that you provide some substantive proof that you can ascertain with reasonable certainty that a) you had not lost your wallet elsewhere, b) your wallet had not been stolen elsewhere, and c) that employees of the pool were beyond any possible suspicion. Even so, they would consider the constitutional rights to privacy of the three innocent persons and the John Does constitutional right to not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process, against your not-constitutionally guaranteed right to have the state subsidize your investigation.
All in all I suspect your case would be thrown out.
If your call records are subpoenaed... absolutely.
Wrong analogy. If your call records are subpoenaed, it is because you have been charged, you are aware of the evidence that is being sought against you, you have an opportunity to quash the subpoena, and in due process has been served.
In this case the film company is on a fishing expedition. all they have is an IP address, and the collection methods have not been proven to be reliable. A better analogy would be the following:
I personally (because remember this is a civil suit, not a criminal one) *suspect* that some unidentified person in my neighborhood has *probably* been slandering me over the telephone. I don't know for sure. So I get a subpoena for the call records of everybody in me neighborhood so I can sift thorough them until I find something that I can use in some way that suits me - with no oversight, no accountability, and no penalty against me if I end up not finding anything at all.
And that is just crazy.
In Russia this type of propaganda is as acceptable as Americans whole believe Obama is not a US citizen.
I guess no one here is old enough to remember when US-based conspiracy theories about Russian weather satellites were commonplace. Here is a 5 year old news clipping about one of the die-hards... http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc20051020_323701.htm
To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift. -- Shelley