• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Bowfinger said:
You might want to learn about the Electronic Communications Privacy Act before you start making silly assertions. Might even keep you out of court some day.
Click to expand...

Show me the internet in the bill of rights. You can make as many acts as you want but when entire industries are destroyed because of a pirate it unless I saw god mindset things will change. We are in some weird blip right now, unfortunately I am working in a industry pron to this stuff and its being destroyed because of it. What we need to do is move away from eople owning actual copies of content. You may rent/stream or buy the rights to watch or use it but it should happen remotely.
 
JSt0rm said:
Show me the internet in the bill of rights. You can make as many acts as you want but when entire industries are destroyed because of a pirate it unless I saw god mindset things will change. We are in some weird blip right now, unfortunately I am working in a industry pron to this stuff and its being destroyed because of it. What we need to do is move away from eople owning actual copies of content. You may rent/stream or buy the rights to watch or use it but it should happen remotely.
Click to expand...

wow
 
JSt0rm said:
Show me the internet in the bill of rights. You can make as many acts as you want but when entire industries are destroyed because of a pirate it unless I saw god mindset things will change. We are in some weird blip right now, unfortunately I am working in a industry pron to this stuff and its being destroyed because of it. What we need to do is move away from eople owning actual copies of content. You may rent/stream or buy the rights to watch or use it but it should happen remotely.
Click to expand...

So you advocate making talkies illegal so we can put all those silent movie pianists back to work?
 
JSt0rm said:
Show me the internet in the bill of rights. You can make as many acts as you want but when entire industries are destroyed because of a pirate it unless I saw god mindset things will change. We are in some weird blip right now, unfortunately I am working in a industry pron to this stuff and its being destroyed because of it. What we need to do is move away from eople owning actual copies of content. You may rent/stream or buy the rights to watch or use it but it should happen remotely.
Click to expand...
I hope your industry dies and you remain unemployed for a loooooong time. To that end I will become a pirate of your product. What business are you in? Music? Video? Designer handbags?
 
nonlnear said:
A guy can dream. 🙂
Click to expand...

You should spend your time dreaming about bettering yourself not pulling someone else down.

My point is that in the last decade we have come to a untenable situation where peoples work is being stolen on a broad level. This is a very real situation, your solution - pirating as much as you can to fuck another person over, isn't the solution.
 
You know, I realize I've been wrong.

Not only is recorded audio destroying this country, but recorded video as well. Think of all the theaters we could have employing millions of actors if not for the nefarious Hollywood cartel. Cities around the country have been offshoring their entertainment to California so they can pay $8 for a movie ticket instead of $20 for a theater ticket, all the while fat cat actors are raking in massive salaries. You and your industry are ruining the US economy.
 
BoberFett said:
You and your industry are ruining the US economy.
Click to expand...

Yes and the unemployed veteran of a foreign war is somehow good for the economy. I know you jest and because I actually have feeling about this issue you are gonna stick it to me. Thats fine. I know how you dogs are.
 
JSt0rm said:
Yeah this isnt music. Movie content being downloaded and watched by a bunch of fucking zeros? No fuck that. Hundreds of highly skilled people working for years and its gonna be just taken? No.
Click to expand...

What if those people downloading these movies simply cannot afford to rent or see them in the theater? Maybe the people that can afford to rent these movies and go to the theaters get charged a little more to subsidize people without funds. This would make perfect sense.
 
Last edited:
JSt0rm said:
Show me the internet in the bill of rights. You can make as many acts as you want but when entire industries are destroyed because of a pirate it unless I saw god mindset things will change. We are in some weird blip right now, unfortunately I am working in a industry pron to this stuff and its being destroyed because of it. What we need to do is move away from eople owning actual copies of content. You may rent/stream or buy the rights to watch or use it but it should happen remotely.
Click to expand...
WTF? Take a Midol, princess. While you're at it, you might want to work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. I didn't say a single fscking word about IP "piracy" or even this judge's possible conflict of interests. I just pointed out that Spidey is wrong when he blurts out dumb assertions like there's "no expectation of privacy anything you do" on the Internet. Granted that's axiomatic given it's Spidey, but ...

That said, in this instance, given that we are talking about judges and courts, these privacy laws don't apply since -- just as with telephones -- court orders supersede normal privacy rights for Internet communications. That's the whole point of such laws, that private communications may not be monitored ... without a court order.
 
bamacre said:
Anyone gonna answer this?
Click to expand...
I did. See Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Essentially, it protects all electronic communications, encrypted or not. You are still infringing on the owner's IP rights, and your e-mail may be legally intercepted with a court order.
 
JSt0rm said:
Show me the internet in the bill of rights. You can make as many acts as you want but when entire industries are destroyed because of a pirate it unless I saw god mindset things will change. We are in some weird blip right now, unfortunately I am working in a industry pron to this stuff and its being destroyed because of it. What we need to do is move away from eople owning actual copies of content. You may rent/stream or buy the rights to watch or use it but it should happen remotely.
Click to expand...

damn right we need to protect established corprations! shut down ford, honda, etc and bring back teh whip and buggy's!
 
Bowfinger said:
I did. See Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Essentially, it protects all electronic communications, encrypted or not. You are still infringing on the owner's IP rights, and your e-mail may be legally intercepted with a court order.
Click to expand...

So, one would need to be sharing files in a public fashion in order for their ISP to be able to legally see?
 
shabby said:
Does it really matter if the riaa was involved in that case? The riaa's interest is to see that copyright violators are held accountable for their actions, if the judge lobbied for the riaa her interests are basically the same... make copyright violators accountable for their actions. Surely allowing to sue large volume of copyright violators at the same fits that same interest.
Click to expand...

First, I didn't realize the thread below was locked, so was being flip.

And to your question above, you are essentially asking a judge to abdicate herself from all cases involving copyright infringement enforcement. That's unreasonable and too broad. An ACLU lawyer/lobbyist cum judge would then need to recuse from all first amendment cases. Barring some much more direct relationship to a party in the case or a current financial interest a judge should not lend credence to the notion that her impartiality is so easily affected by recusing.
 
bamacre said:
Anyone gonna answer this?
Click to expand...

I already did. We are all legally having all our electronic communications captured by the government in cooperation with the Telecoms and then analyzed to fight Al-Qaeda. The president has the power to do this as it's critical for national security even if it might be against the law. 😎
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top