Judge Allows Subpoenas For Internet Users 338
crimeandpunishment writes "A federal judge has ruled that the company holding a movie copyright can subpoena the names of people who are accused of illegally downloading and distributing the film. The judge ruled that courts have maintained that once people convey subscriber information to their Internet service providers, they no longer have an expectation of privacy."
Re:It's 1984 all over again (Score:1, Interesting)
You know, it never ceases to sicken me how people compare things to 1984 without having a clue about the book. 1984 wasn't the real date in the book - no-one knew the real date and they guessed it as 1984. Also surveillance wasn't done by companies like your ISP, it was done by the government through telescreens. He also predicted we'd have no shoes and various other things.
1984 is a great book. So do us all a favor and go and fucking read it before you compare anything to it.
Re:Eh? (Score:1, Interesting)
Prepaid mobile internet is pretty anonymous me thinks..
Blind (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, the judge probably never bothered to consider the fact that the studio in question played the exact same recording industry end-run around legal procedures by first suing a bunch of "John Does", subpoenaing the ISP for their names and numbers, then dropping the case without prejudice and suing the individual "John Does" using their real names-- a clear misuse of the courts that wastes time and resources, but thus far unchallenged and thereby silently encouraged, to my recollection. The judge also probably never bothered to consider that the names obtained in this fashion are notoriously unreliable, especially considering dynamic address allocation and the widespread use of wireless networks and the poor access security thereof.
No, the judge decided that this was permissible either because he (she?) believes that kids downloading movies online is a grave affront to justice akin to mass looting, or that the arguments that this judge can consider were filtered by a overly narrow consideration of the case. While young kids and their families are squeezed for millions of dollars (often sent straight to the media industry's legal counsels), the bootleg industry in Asia makes off with billions of dollars' worth of undeserved revenue.
Re:It's 1984 all over again (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Poooh (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you pay your ISP with your cat's credit card? I don't believe there's an ISP that will take cash (at least in the US). For any of the big providers, you need to prove your identity (and of course, your address).
I realize you're just joking, but it's an interesting point. I'm not sure there's any way to get anonymous internet access in the US, except illicitly.
Homage to Catalonia (Score:4, Interesting)
Reading 1984 and Animal Farm can be misleading if you don't understand that Orwell was, himself, a socialist. Read, for instance, Homage to Catalonia [amazon.com], Orwell's account of his time as a volunteer in a revolutionary socialist militia in Spain, and the way that they were attacked by the Communist Party.
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
TOTAL $230,000 currently owed plus $110,000 promised but unfunded = $340,000 per USH (approximately)
The problem is... that number simply doesn't tell the whole story. In particular, the length of time that different parts of it have to be repaid over varies. Credit cards are pretty short term debt (or should be at those interest rates!) whereas mortgages are much longer term, and a lot of government debt even longer than that. Perhaps a more useful figure to study is the approximate amount that the average household has to repay of that debt every month relative to their income; that gives a much stronger figure for just how indebted they actually are.
Therefore... (Score:3, Interesting)
Judges are people. Therefore, any judge with an Internet connection no longer has any expectation of privacy. Got that, folks?