Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Privacy The Courts Your Rights Online

New Copyright Lawsuits Go After Porn On Bittorrent 209

Posted by Soulskill
from the enjoy-explaining-that-subpoena-to-your-parents dept.
neoflexycurrent writes "Three adult media entertainment producers filed suit Thursday in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging copyright infringement against hundreds of anonymous defendants accused of trading videos using Bittorrent. This kind of action resembles the much-criticized mass litigation undertaken by the US Copyright Group against hordes of unknown accused Bittorrent users trading movies like The Hurt Locker. In this case, the subject matter promises to be more provocative."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Copyright Lawsuits Go After Porn On Bittorrent

Comments Filter:
  • Uh oh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DurendalMac (736637) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @11:58AM (#33475342)
    This is gonna be a double-whammy for /. users...
    • by erroneus (253617)

      You got that right. I have always felt pretty safe downloading porn from torrents. Fortunately, I'm running peer guardian but that may not be enough. I guess I need to be more careful about that too.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by DJLuc1d (1010987)
      yeah, my first thought was 'uh-oh'
  • by TinBromide (921574) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @11:59AM (#33475346)
    Hmm, people will definitely settle now, there won't be much sympathy as there was for Jaime Thomas. Nobody wants their name out there for having massive collection of porn, that's something you want to keep on the DL.

    1. Accuse someone of having massive amounts of porn and offer to sell your silence

    2. ???

    3. Profit!!!

    Oh, wait, step 2 IS step 1....
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 04, 2010 @12:11PM (#33475424)

      Better yet, here are the titles from the first PDF:

      Shemale Yum, Trannies From Hell, and Shemale Pornstar

      • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @12:15PM (#33475462)

        Trannies From Hell

        Reminds me of my 94 Ford Mustang that would intermittently fall out of gear on the highway.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Better yet, here are the titles from the first PDF:

        Shemale Yum, Trannies From Hell, and Shemale Pornstar

        What's wrong with shemales? Living in Thailand I gotta tell you, they give you the absolutely best blowjobs and still have nice tits and look like girls!

      • by cappp (1822388)
        Happened to me during the great University Downloading times of yesteryear. Let me tell you there is nothing quite as uncomfortable as sitting with your elderly dean - the one who's writing your grad school reccomendations - the head of the IT department - your current boss - and the vice-president of the university - the parent of your current sweetheart - and trying to explain just why the university has been contacted by legal representatives of certain firms asserting a copyright claim over such colorfu
        • by Surt (22457)

          Wow, I always assumed those titles had pretty distinct audiences, you're a real renaissance man (or woman, I suppose)!

    • by mangu (126918)

      Nobody wants their name out there for having massive collection of porn,

      Speak for yourself, I have 2 TB of porn and I'm PROUD of it!

      • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Saturday September 04, 2010 @12:40PM (#33475644) Homepage Journal
        Why pay for porn and/or store it locally when the internet and its streaming-flash sites like Redtube, Pornotube, and even the vile borderline-legal Motherless are readily available*?

        * unless you made it yourself, that is :)
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          you forgot xhamster

        • Never heard of red tube. My big porn days were back in the 80's and I grew up with dirty books so the stories appealed to me more than the X-rated films. I think I saw one X rated film that was arousing-- and that was not during the sex scene but rather during the seduction scene that lead up to the sex scene. It was just a guy and a girl standing talking in front of a fireplace and it started with no interest at all between then and as they talked things got a little more racy and then hot and then at t

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Never heard of red tube. My big porn days were back in the 80's and I grew up with dirty books so the stories appealed to me more than the X-rated films.

            You may be interested in:

            Literotica [literotica.com]
            and
            Adult Interactive Fiction [aifgames.com]

      • Now I know who's drive to raid since I've got a meager 400GB

    • Hmm, wonder how this whole blind subpoena thingee works? If you are using a free wireless signal provided by the city, are they going to sue the city for downloading this stuff? How about if you live at an address, yet the cable bill is under an entirely fictitious name? Who gets sued then? Seems like they are fighting a losing battle. Send out lawsuits and sue folks that have no money, and do what? If they are poor, then bankruptcy, IIRC, wipes legal judgments clean, except for tax stuff I thought. And the
      • Perhaps the ultimate goal of these lawsuits is not to actually recoup losses or find new modes of profit, but rather to kill any system in which commoners are not reliant on some corporation to provide service for them. You know, scare people away from P2P and toward service providers like Rapidshare, scare municipalities away from providing Internet access and toward favorable deals for broadband providers. In the end, everyone except for the People will win; the copyright holders can go back to arguing
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Ogi_UnixNut (916982)
          I always wondered why they didn't go after companies such as rapidshare. Surely it should be easier to take down a centralised system? It's almost as bad as the old FTP sites (in fact it's worse, FTP sites generally were not indexed by search engines). These companies should be easy pickings as far as lawsuits are concerned. What am I missing?
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by hitmark (640295)

            DMCA safe haven, thats what. Its the same that keeps youtube "floating". If rapidshare is notified, they will remove a download. And as long as they do, they can't be closed down completely. But as the upload is more or less anonymous, the uploader can just upload the file again when he notices that it has been removed.

            • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @04:41PM (#33477192)

              DMCA safe haven, thats what. Its the same that keeps youtube "floating".

              True enough, but even if an infringing download is not removed, you still have to go to court, and win. You can't pull RIAA-style courtroom shenanigans with an outfit that has lawyers who charge just as much per hour as yours do. It's much more profitable (and provides much better PR, if you can call it that) if you just attack individual infringers with default judgments and threaten their livelihoods unless they cough up some dough and settle out of court.

              Face it, the content industry is owned and operated by people with a gangster mentality, otherwise the RIAA would never have been funded to the level that permitted their lawsuit mill to go forward. Ditto for the MPAA. Remember, those two groups are not exactly autonomous: they have masters they serve, and whose marching orders they follow.

        • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @04:33PM (#33477130)

          Perhaps the ultimate goal of these lawsuits is not to actually recoup losses or find new modes of profit, but rather to kill any system in which commoners are not reliant on some corporation to provide service for them.

          The intent of the media cartels is to eliminate any and all technologies which can be used to distribute content outside of cartel-owned channels, regardless of any consequences to individuals or society at large. Period. End of statement. If these bastards could have assassinated the original DoD working group that developed TCP/IP and the principles of packet routing they would have done so in a heartbeat. But that would have required the ability to look further than the end of their own collective nose. Forward thinking is not a specialty of monopolies or cartels.

          Honest to God, look at the history of the motion picture industry, especially their take on home video recording. Remember Jack "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone" Valenti? Maybe you don't, but if not, remember than the VCR eventually resulted in billions of dollars of revenue that would never have been realized if their shortsighted attempts to have it banned in the U.S. had been successful. The music industry is no better: they successfully killed off DAT (a nifty technology) and even managed to get a tax levied on blank media sold in the U.S. You know, to compensate the "artists" for their presumed losses due to (ahem!) "piracy", regardless of whether that media was used to illegally copy anything whatsoever. They then reneged on that deal (.e.g, the Audio Home Recording Act), and started suing people for fun and profit anyway. Fuckers, all of them. Personally, I think law enforcement dollars would be much better spent investigating the largely foreign-owned corporations that comprise the so-called content industry, and protecting citizens from the depredations of their pressure groups than, say, all the grandstanding going on around Google.

          I have no respect at all for these people (and I use the term loosely) since most of their problems are due to a sociopathic need to control, and a complete inability to understand that the world is a very different place now that the Internet is here. They could and should be making more money than every before using new technologies and opportunities afforded by the Internet age, just as they made billions by selling VHS tapes. But they can't see that: all they want is to control distribution so they can charge whatever they believe we'll cough up. Competition be damned. I suppose it doesn't hurt that the RIAA proved that racketeering, frivolous lawsuits, perjury, forced settlements, intimidation and destroyed families can be so darn profitable.

    • by dcavanaugh (248349) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @01:57PM (#33476108) Homepage

      A colleague of mine had a cable modem. For a number of reasons, he just happened to be aware of his IP address. It was DHCP assigned, but essentially a static assignment because it never changed. Then one day, there was a technical problem. Whatever the problem was, the cable company's solution consisted of changing his IP address. Great! New IP address! Problem solved.

      A few months later, he gets a nastygram from the cable ISP. "Your IP address x.x.x.x was used for illegal file sharing activity on $DATE, and your contact information been supplied to the copyright holder pursuant to a subpeona..." One TINY little problem. The address in question was his NEW IP address and the date in question was BEFORE THE ADDRESS WAS ASSIGNED TO HIM! It seems the ISP looked up the IP address in question and identified the CURRENT user, with no consideration about who was using it at the time!

      It gets better. The colleague in question has a lot of money, lawyers, and the willingness to use them. The cable clowns got spanked big-time. I have reason to believe they paid a substantial settlement to avoid a defamation suit. And of course, the process of identifying users by IP address has now been proven to be error-prone. Reasonable doubt for everyone!

      In addition to incompetent ISP research, there are a number of ways for a user to hijack your IP address, which I won't go into here. But trust me, it's possible. More reasonable doubt.

      It's one thing to accuse someone of sharing "The Sound of Music" and say "oops" when the user in question turns out to deaf and clueless about P2P. But when the movie is "Debbie Does Detroit", the reputation of the defendant is damaged. That's a BIG problem if the user identification process is flawed (as described above). Sooner or later, the plaintiffs are going to go to court armed with bad information and all hell will break loose.

      • by hitmark (640295)

        Sounds like i better get a mega-sized serving of popcorn ready, as the fireworks from such an even should be spectacular.

  • Sounds fair (Score:5, Funny)

    by InfiniteWisdom (530090) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @12:06PM (#33475394) Homepage

    When people download porn without paying for it it ultimately hurts the working stiffs...

    • by bytethese (1372715) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @12:12PM (#33475428)
      *rimjob*

      er...

      *rimshot*
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by FrankDrebin (238464)
        "Honestly honey, I wasn't looking at porn, I was applying for work at Research In Motion. Seriously, I'd love to get a RIM job..."
    • by rubycodez (864176)

      and the working wet and engorged, too /me quickly glances over article.....but at least the JAV companies aren't suing yet, *whew*

    • Re:Sounds fair (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @12:17PM (#33475486) Homepage

      "When people download porn without paying for it it ultimately hurts the working stiffs..."

      I know you were going for a joke, but it is my understanding that the actors and actresses usually get paid a paltry sum up front rather than a decent share of the profits, so it doesn't hurt them*. It "hurts" the bottom line of a bunch of people who are already much richer than they deserve to be in my opinion, so I say screw 'em.

      * I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but I imagine they are fairly rare

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Really? It doesn't hurt them when the people who would have been willing to pay that paltry sum don't make as many movies anymore because there isn't much return on investment? I would think it would hurt them a lot since they aren't paid as well as mainstream actors.
        • by Surt (22457)

          But if, in fact, they make less per movie, surely they have to make MORE movies to make up their losses, not less, so ultimately, isn't this helping?

      • by rubycodez (864176) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @12:27PM (#33475554)

        but those that ride to the top get paid well. And don't forget those further down the pipe always have various ways for back end money.

      • by mangu (126918)

        It "hurts" the bottom line of a bunch of people who are already much richer than they deserve to be in my opinion, so I say screw 'em.

        My head hurts from those mixed metaphors and double entendres, "It hurts the bottom", "I say screw 'em"

      • by Kjella (173770)

        So if I decide to take a higher paycheck over stock options, you think stealing from my company will only hurt the stock owners and not me? That there won't be pay cuts and layoffs if our revenue fails? Unless the porn actors were tricked into signing a contract that would give them much less than they thought through Hollywood accounting, that's a choice between them and their employer. Asking for an up front sum is pretty much as honest as it gets, they got paid what they asked for and if it was too littl

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Zero__Kelvin (151819)
          Right. Your logic is impeccable. The guy that only makes $500,000 off a production will stop hiring actors and actresses at $1000.00 a pop because he didn't make a million. You evidently know so little about the porn industry that you think making a comparison to working at a typical company is somehow logical.
      • so I say screw 'em.

        Well, porn is all about screwing, so....

      • by bjourne (1034822)

        There are quite a few actresses who operates their own paysites. If people download free porn *instead of* subscribing to their sites, then obviously that hurts their bottom line. Many porn actresses also do escort work on the side, maybe because recording movies doesn't pay enough, to support their coke addiction or just because it is funny, I don't know. The fees for one hour with Jill Kelly or Nina Hartley, two of the absolute top names, is about $1000/hour. Wicked Pictures [yahoo.com] made a revenue of merely 2.6 m

      • Lets hear it for freedom and capitalization!

    • We need to take our country back!

  • So, they could spend $1,000,000 prosecuting a handful of anonymous users or they could make 200 more pornos. I think they've made the wrong choice. I guess their business model is starting to fail. Maybe they should move from "plotted" features with 40-year old fake women to 18-year-old gonzo.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Cool, let's take every tired Slashdot argument about piracy and make it topical!

      If they made better pornos with hotter girls (like they did when I was 13), people would pay for them, especially if they had a fair price, say $2 each.
      Haven't they heard of "Try before you buy"? I download porn all the time and also own 2,000 porno DVDs. In fact I just purchased the collectors edition of Asian Cumholes 8.
      Most porno is downloaded by "collectors" who would never buy the porn and don't even masturbate. They just w

    • by alvinrod (889928) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @12:30PM (#33475580)
      Or they realized that if they hit 10,000 people with a $1,000 settlement, they could easily $10,000,000 without having to do a whole lot. Especially if it's a film with a very raunchy sounding title. Most people would gladly pay $1,000 to avoid having that information become public. They probably won't even have to go to court for most of the cases. Then they can use that $10,000,000 to make 2000 more pornos and sue another 10,000 people for copyright infringement.

      Reminds me of a scene from Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels: (Quote taken from IMDB)

      Tom: Listen to this one then; you open a company called the Arse Tickler's Faggot Fan Club. You take an advert in the back page of some gay mag, advertising the latest in arse-intruding dildos, sell it a bit with, er... I dunno, "does what no other dildo can do until now", latest and greatest in sexual technology. Guaranteed results or money back, all that bollocks. These dills cost twenty-five each; a snip for all the pleasure they are going to give the recipients. They send a cheque to the company name, nothing offensive, er, Bobbie's Bits or something, for twenty-five. You put these in the bank for two weeks and let them clear. Now this is the clever bit. Then you send back the cheques for twenty-five pounds from the real company name, Arse Tickler's Faggot Fan Club, saying sorry, we couldn't get the supply from America, they have sold out. Now you see how many of the people cash those cheques; not a single soul, because who wants his bank manager to know he tickles arses when he is not paying in cheques!
      • by hitmark (640295)

        I think that quote actually have happened. Some online porn company had charged various people for services they had failed to deliver, got a court order to pay their customers back, but sent checks in the company name easily readable.

        • I think that quote actually have happened. Some online porn company had charged various people for services they had failed to deliver, got a court order to pay their customers back, but sent checks in the company name easily readable.

          I'd deposit the check anyway. Don't much care what some anonymous person in a check processing room thinks of me.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by sr180 (700526)

          My mates all do this already anyway. Whenever we transfer money to each other via electronic banking, (say for footy tipping competitions or the like) we add a description line such as "Big black anal dildos."

          The poor guy who ran our last footy tipping competition had to show up at with his bank statements for a loan he was applying for. Of course his statement was full of payments for dildos, gay sex, escorting etc etc...

          • by russotto (537200) on Sunday September 05, 2010 @12:16AM (#33479556) Journal

            The poor guy who ran our last footy tipping competition had to show up at with his bank statements for a loan he was applying for. Of course his statement was full of payments for dildos, gay sex, escorting etc etc...

            You think that's bad? A guy I know ran one of those, and had to get a loan from an American bank. And you know what everyone put in the memo line? "Footy-tipping competition", that's what.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    They're not the only ones going after porn on Bittorrent; it's very popular.

  • by Kazymyr (190114) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @12:18PM (#33475488) Journal

    First they came for those who were sharing music, and I shrugged; I didn't care, because I wasn't sharing music.
    Then they came for those who were sharing movies, and I shrugged; I didn't care, because I wasn't sharing movies.
    Then they came for me, who was sharing porn. I didn't shrug, but there was nobody left to care for me.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 04, 2010 @12:22PM (#33475518)

    Clearly, we need to relax copyright law in order to hurt the porn industry, for the sake of the children.

    If you support strong copyright law now you hate children, right?

    • Clearly, we need to relax copyright law in order to hurt the porn industry, for the sake of the children.

      If you support strong copyright law now you hate children, right?

      You do realize that the cognitive dissonance of this would literally dissolve the brains of many Congresspeople?

      Of course, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Sounds like an orgy of injustice to me. I can't wait to watch all those lawyers screwing everyone and everything. Wheee

  • Extortion (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Saturday September 04, 2010 @12:24PM (#33475530) Homepage Journal

    Can someone explain to me how this isn't extortion?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's legal.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Runaway1956 (1322357)
        It's legal EXTORTION. In the US, they terms are not mutually exclusive. I suspect the same to be true in most places. After all - the US didn't invent the professional lawyer, we just feed ours better than most places.
        • It's legal EXTORTION. In the US, they terms are not mutually exclusive. I suspect the same to be true in most places. After all - the US didn't invent the professional lawyer, we just feed ours better than most places.

          Some people feed pet sharks too. Doesn't mean you're supposed to let them into the swimming pool.

    • For better or for worse, our system lets defendants get out of cases if they submit to a lesser punishment. Unless you concede that plea bargains are equally extortionist, I can't see a good, logical basis to denounce this in principle other than the fact that they haven't **yet** identified the users beyond a reasonable doubt.

      • Unless you concede that plea bargains are equally extortionist

        Um, yep, absolutely. They pervert the entire system, seeing people who didn't do anything plead out to avoid risking big charges, and let people who do seriously bad stuff get away with a light sentence by only pleading to a relatively minor crime. All plea bargains do is get society the worst of both worlds.

        • My understanding of the situation is that our legal system couldn't exist without them, or would at least cost waaaaaaay more to run and require far more personnel, as we simply don't have enough judges and public defenders to handle more than a small fraction of cases, should a full trial be required.

          • then the legal system is broken. All cases should always go to trial. The prosecution should have to lay out a beyond-reasonable doubt case even if someone pleads guilty (so pleading guilty would be like opting not to present a defence).

            If the present system can't cope with that, the present system needs to be expanded (or there need to be less laws). The same with justice as with everything else - you get what you pay for.

          • by Arker (91948)

            My understanding of the situation is that our legal system couldn't exist without them, or would at least cost waaaaaaay more to run and require far more personnel, as we simply don't have enough judges and public defenders to handle more than a small fraction of cases, should a full trial be required.

            True, and points out how broken our system is.

            If we got rid of all the "victimless crime" nonsense our courts would actually be able to function. But nobody (in power) wants that.

  • by reverendbeer (1496637) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @01:21PM (#33475888)
    ...bother downloading an entire porn movie? The innumerable porn versions of youtube that are out there provide plenty of free material for, er, whatever you need it for. Whether 5 minutes or an hour, it's out there and with all the variety you've come to expect. Er, so I hear.
  • by the Gray Mouser (1013773) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @01:24PM (#33475912)

    First, I would think slashdotter's would be for this. Remember, the GPL and other "free" or "open" licenses all get their power of enforcement from copyright law. So if you want strong open source software licenses, you need strong copyright protection.

    Second, Porn sites don't cost much. A lot of them will offer a discount if you click out of the signup page. Join for a few months, download all you want high quality and DRM free, then cancel. Beats searching around through random links where you never know what will pop up.

    Third, porn may be one of the last pillars we have left in this economy. When all the other businesses are starving for customers, people still want their porn. And it's the adult entertainment industry that's been on the forefront of internet and network development for years. Stuff like live chat, streaming video, secure billing.

    Without porn the internet would still be a dry and barren wasteland where only the most computer savvy could tread.

      1. The GPL is merely one method of implementing libre software. RMS has noted that there are other methods, such as government run code escrows which automatically release code to the public after a certain amount of time (assuming the absence of a copyright system -- so anyone who releases software would be legally obligated to submit their code to the escrow or to make it available to the public with their own equipment).
      2. It is very difficult to trust porn sites -- pornography is one of the most common vect
      • Didn't we have that bitcoin thing crop up as anonymous internet cash? I seem to remember an article about it, perhaps porn sites should start accepting bitcoins or something.....
    • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Saturday September 04, 2010 @03:01PM (#33476610) Homepage Journal

      First, I would think slashdotter's would be for this. Remember, the GPL and other "free" or "open" licenses all get their power of enforcement from copyright law. So if you want strong open source software licenses, you need strong copyright protection.

      This argument comes up a lot in discussions of copyright law, but it's just a specious "gotcha." The F/OSS movement exists as a response to the increasingly Draconian nature of copyright, and it's a clever hack, but hacking the system does not mean approval of the system. The ideal situation would simply be for open source licenses to be unnecessary. Instead, as the copyright lobby pushes for ever-increasing restrictions on the dissemination of information, F/OSS advocates have to work harder to keep the system from being quite as awful as it could be.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by evilviper (135110)

        The F/OSS movement exists as a response to the increasingly Draconian nature of copyright, [...] but hacking the system does not mean approval of the system. The ideal situation would simply be for open source licenses to be unnecessary.

        Except that's not true. Sure, copyright laws are getting ridiculous, but a world without copyright would NOT be an open-source world... It would just be one where reverse-engineering, and sharing of someone else's software is legal.

        Stallman/FSF/et al. don't want a world wi

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Per Wigren (5315)
          Stallman has approved the Pirate Party's proposal of a 5 year commercial copyright and no copyright restrictions for non-commercial/private use (and no patents what so ever). Personally, I also think that's a fair compromise. If you haven't broke even after 5 years you probably never will.
    • Third, porn may be one of the last pillars we have left in this economy. When all the other businesses are starving for customers, people still want their porn.

      This is completely wrong. The porno industry [wikipedia.org] is a $13billion industry. Although that number can be disputed, it is not even .1% of the US economy. As a comparison, agriculture in California alone makes $36 billion [ca.gov], and even that only accounts for 2% or so of the state's production. Porn may be big business, but comparatively, it is not important.

    • by evilviper (135110)

      First, I would think slashdotter's would be for this. Remember, the GPL and other "free" or "open" licenses all get their power of enforcement from copyright law. So if you want strong open source software licenses, you need strong copyright protection.

      There is a world of difference between commercial and non-commercial. The porn industry long ago made a pact to ignore non-commercial distribution of their works, and only going after those who would illegally sell it. Freeware software licenses before the

    • by Jeian (409916)

      "Without porn the internet would still be a dry and barren wasteland where only the most computer savvy could tread." ... those bastards!

  • Interesting Tension (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MarkvW (1037596) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @01:42PM (#33476024)

    The judges will HATE dealing with porno cases. They will want to make them go away. Judges can make things "go away" very easily. One erroneous fact finding can kill a case dead--permanently and totally dead. They can also cut all the legal breaks in favor of dismissing a lawsuit. We place a lot of trust in our judges and sometimes they betray us. A good example can be found in the judges in the South tasked with enforcing the "separate but equal" laws. They enforced the 'separate' part, but the 'equal' part got lost.

    Even though the judges will want to make the porno cases go away, they won't be able to treat them too rudely (because the court rules and legal principles in effect are supposed to be "content neutral"). This tension might manifest itself in the porno cases in cool and interesting ways.

    Porno is the big sleeping giant that the big media ignores. If they behave like pricks (or like the RIAA), the judges are going to go all hairy on their ass. When mainstream media comes around and tries to do the same bad things that the porno media wasn't allowed to do, the Courts will be hamstrung by their need to appear consistent. This presents some pretty cool ideas.

    If you want to support internet freedom, support the Larry Flynts of the world in their efforts to protect their ultra-gross porno copyrights. You want them to be mean and brutal in the glorious tradition of the RIAA. Support them on appeal--all the way to the bitter end. This would be a legal version of a sapping attack. The judges will cut the filth-purveyors the absolute least slack possible. This will make for a better and more fair copyright law--and will have the humorous by product of watching the RIAA support the filthiest porn purveyors in the appellate courts.

    It could get pretty absurd.

    • It could get pretty absurd.

      Hard to imagine this getting any more absurd than the average RIAA suit, but anything is possible. Especially here in the "land of the free".

    • by Blackhalo (572408)
      Great post! I wish I had mod points left. Even I have trouble reconciling Torrents of Porn. On one hand I recognize Flynt as a major force in free speech advocacy, on the other, I like free porn. Part of why the industry though, is going after this, is that AMATEUR porn being posted to the torrents, by Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, is starting to cut into the bottom line. I think the attack is not so much directed at the pr0noholics, so much as trying to chill the competing distribution method
    • by kuzb (724081)

      Judge: We'll take a half hour recess while I ... um ... privately review the evidence ... in my chambers.

  • Oh to be... (Score:4, Funny)

    by roc97007 (608802) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @02:55PM (#33476572) Journal

    ...a juror on that trial...

  • Will everyone go back to. It will become about impossible to catch anyone doing anything as all that is being taught is 'you better hide what you are doing', no matter what it is, for tomorrow what you do may be illegal too and we keep records forever.

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Saturday September 04, 2010 @06:59PM (#33477968)
    They are forgetting that 2 large industries (music and mainstream movies) with more money and clout than even the porno industry has, have both failed to make ANY money on their lawsuits, AND failed to stop or even slow down filesharing!

I've never been canoeing before, but I imagine there must be just a few simple heuristics you have to remember... Yes, don't fall out, and don't hit rocks.

Working...