Anti-Piracy Lawyers Accuse Blind Man of Downloading Films 302
souravzzz writes "As the mass-lawsuits against BitTorrent users in the United States drag on, detail on the collateral damage this extortion-like scheme is costing becomes clear. It is likely that thousands of people have been wrongfully accused of sharing copyrighted material, yet they see no other option than to pay up. One of the cases that stands out is that of a California man who's incapable of watching the adult film he is accused of sharing because he is legally blind."
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I was just thinking he was a pervert listen to women masturbating and might actually be guilty of the crime.
Not that I have a problem with him being a pervert, listening to women masturbating, or pirating the film.
Really just curious how big is the collection of this dirty perverted and blind pirate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you know? A pervert is any man whose sex life consists of anything other than fucking his wife, with the lights off, in the missionary position, while still wearing as many clothes as possible, and with no dirty talk.
Re: (Score:2)
numbnut, a common side-effect.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you never looked at your hands afterwards? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Whooosh. I'll ruin the joke, but I guess it has to be explained. When you masturbate, you're likely to pull your pubic hair out (no matter your gender). They may well get stuck between your fingers and other areas of your hand. intellitech was thinking about "cum shot residue" -- that's close enough, but it'd be too obvious to make a good joke IMHO. The joke is, thus, that you can check if someone masturbates by looking inside their palms/between their fingers for pubic hair. Of course it's only a joke: if
Re: (Score:3)
When you masturbate, you're likely to pull your pubic hair out (no matter your gender).
Surely this depends on how you masturbate, how well endowed you are, how hirsute you are, whether you're mutilated or not, and a bunch of other factors.
Re:Check his palms for what? (Score:4, Informative)
Don't explain if you don't know the explanation.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, no. That makes no sense, and that's not the joke. The joke comes from the very old myth that masturbating makes one grow hair on their palms (hence everyone will know you're a bad person).
It's not a myth so much as it is a way for nosy parents and priests to check whether kids have started masturbating. Mention this lie while talking between adults, and if the kids sneak looks at their palms, they probably have. Not that it's any business of the adults.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess meta jokes are not all the rage anymore, huh? Anyway, obviously the real answer is that masturbation is what makes blind people get beautiful eyelashes. There.
The discussion that follows is hilarious enough, that was my intent, if half-assed. Mission accomplished?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty certain that it's very much a business of an adult raising a child to know that his/her child has started masturbating. Problem arises when they (adults) react in a childish/stupid way to it. A good parent will put this information in good use.
Granted most parents that come from puritan cultures tend to react to this information very badly.
Re: (Score:3)
, and if the kids sneak looks at their palms, they probably have.
Conversely, if the kids do not sneak a look, they probably have anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
And what business is it of society to say what business it is of the parents?
Re: (Score:2)
What possible good use is there for that piece of information? Knowing when leaving a copy of Sex for One under their bed is less likely to inspire confusion than embarrassment?
Re: (Score:2)
"When you masturbate, you're likely to pull your pubic hair out (no matter your gender)."
Pubic hair?
How old _are_ you?
Re: (Score:2)
what has referring pubic hair, the correct term for it, got to do with any indication of age?
Re: (Score:2)
I think (s)he's is suggesting (s)he isn't old enough to have any...
Re: (Score:2)
'twas a meta-joke [wikipedia.org] -- obviously I'm no good at it. I apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, people who are old enough know enough about zoology to be able to invoke, say, semi-aquatic nocturnal rodents. If you're into botany instead, you may talk of shrubs. Use of vernacular seems to be all-defining to some people. Talking like someone with at least half of a brain, seemingly makes you a kid. Hey, I wouldn't mind to be a kid again!
Re: (Score:2)
It's much simpler than that. For hundreds of years religiously motivated parents tried to discourage their sons from masturbating by warning that they will grow hairy palms if they do (completely untrue of course).
That's what the joke is about.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good attempt, but I think you're way off ...
Certain groups who view masturbation as sinful (*cough* Catholics *cough*), in an attempt to dissuade kids from doing it, would suggest that it would cause you to have hairy palms, or go blind. The implication being that engaging in that very sinful act would have long term consequences that would be visibl
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what kind of URL trickery you're trying to do there, but I substituted the goo.gl code for a known safe one and it didn't work, so you're doing it wrong.
Question not answered (Score:5, Funny)
Was the film in braille?
Re: (Score:2)
no no, the film was entitiled "Braille -- Bump Bump Bump"
Not implausible... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In all seriousness, the Playboy issues I've read really do have some good articles, it's just kinda odd to have that kind of material and the pictures of nekkid women int he same magazine.
Re: (Score:2)
In all seriousness, the Playboy issues I've read really do have some good articles, it's just kinda odd to have that kind of material and the pictures of nekkid women int he same magazine.
That's nothing compared to 4chan.
Re:Not implausible... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're joking, but blind people do listen to movies, and even go to movie theatres. The sound is still there, and your imagination does the rest.
And this person isn't totally blind either - he is able to use a computer monitor with a magnifying lens. That can just as well be used for video as for text.
Whether he's innocent or not, we'll never know. He settled.
If he hadn't, I would have considered him innocent unless he was proven guilty, but now we'll never know.
We know he lied about not being able to enjoy movies, though, because many completely blind people do.
And I know I wouldn't hire him as a computer security expert, if he claims that his wi-fi setup was done by his wife clicking OK a few times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We know he lied about not being able to enjoy movies, though, because many completely blind people do.
What kind of fucking twisted un-logic is that? Because many completely blind people enjoy movies, therefore this person also must enjoy movies? I just happen to do charity work with visually impaired and blind people, and know that the majority of them do not enjoy movies, specifically because they can't see them.
Re:Not implausible... (Score:4, Interesting)
"It's perfectly good logic. This individual's defense boils down to 1) All blind people cannot enjoy movies. 2) I am a blind person. 3) Therefore, I cannot enjoy movies, had no motive for downloading this movie, and could not have done so."
No. His defence was basically that he is legally blind and doesn't enjoy movies". He never said that "all blind people cannot enjoy movies", he said that HE doesn't enjoy movies because he is blind. There is absolutely no doubt that being blind detracts from the movie experience, and the existance of a minority which still finds some enjoyment in movies does not mean he is lying about this.
Obviously a judge would have to decide whether he/she believed him, but given that he majority do not enjoy movies, it is likely that he is telling the truth.
But how blind he is is described (Score:2)
I did know some blind people, granted fully blind as in being unable to see anything at all and while they did indeed hear tv and movies they did so mostly to fit in. It just isn't a medium aimed at them. Just as a deaf person might go to a concert just to experience it so he at least has some idea what everyone else is talking about or someone with no taste might go to a fine restaurant because that is where the party is being held.
The idea that a person with a very high degree of blindness watches porn is
Re: (Score:2)
>And I know I wouldn't hire him as a computer security expert, if he claims that his wi-fi setup was done by his wife clicking OK a few times.
I wouldn't be so sure about that one. Have you noticed how many great plumbers have horrible plumbing in their own houses? Hell a lot of geeks I know have their own computers in a complete mess with cables all around the place. Why ? We work on this stuff all day, we get home, the last thing we want to do now is spend more time setting up computer stuff. We instea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a 5 page article with Jhon Lennon and Yoko Ono, without pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
Were the pages stuck together? TNR is just a hot Font.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be an upload?
Free Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
the network-security professional recounts the rookie mistake that got him into this mess.
"I didn't have time to set up the wireless network in my old apartment,"
This is not a mistake. Providing a free wireless Internet connection to neighbors is legal. An IP address is not a person.
Re: (Score:2)
An IP address is not a person.
Yeah but it's close enough for law enforcement work :-P
Re: (Score:2)
An ISP contract cannot make you legally liable to other people's actions that have nothing to do with the ISP themselves. You can't ask for more volume based off "other people used it, not me"; but they can't say "if you don't secure your wireless you are legally responsible for BP's oil spills".
As an ISP is nothing but a carrier (this is why net neutrality is important), they cannot make you responsible for copyright infringements other people commit on your open network.
*if* the ISP is not liable for thos
Threshold for filing suit (Score:4, Insightful)
Currently the minimal threshold for filing suit is way too low. The "rights holders" here surely have some colorable claim that infringement happened (i.e. some kind of network monitoring log, and a claim from an ISP that the monitored IP address belonged to this guy). So far US courts have decided that this is enough to file a lawsuit, something which creates a lot of work for lawyers and greatly advantages those who file extortionate suits -- the cost of actually defending a suit like this (tends of thousands of dollars) is much higher than the cost of settling. Worse, by filing suit the plaintiffs get the right to use the courts to coerce the defendant into assisting in the investigation (and to pay the costs of that!).
A second problem is that even if you are successful in defending a lawsuit you are unlikely to get your legal (let alone indirect) costs reimbursed.
So, the solution is: first, to require more evidence before a lawsuit can be filed, and, second, to make cost shifting the default when a lawsuit is dismissed on the pleading.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the solution is: first, to require more evidence before a lawsuit can be filed, and, second, to make cost shifting the default when a lawsuit is dismissed on the pleading.
Actually, it's the reimbursement of reasonable costs that is important. If a plaintiff withdraws their suit, they should have to make the defendant whole (pay legal costs, etc.) though only if those costs are proportionate to the action. (This is vital: lawyers must not be encouraged to pad out costs, and everyone needs to use an appropriate level of legal representation, and not jump straight to the most expensive method in the hope of scaring off the other side.) Similarly, if a plaintiff wins their case
Legally blind != Totally blind (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because someone is legally blind, does not mean they have no sight whatsoever. There is a massive difference. I do know people who are legally blind who download and watch plenty of things. They can see, but just not very well. It is possible this guy could watch porn, he just can't legally drive a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone is legally blind, does not mean they have no sight whatsoever. There is a massive difference. I do know people who are legally blind who download and watch plenty of things. They can see, but just not very well. It is possible this guy could watch porn, he just can't legally drive a car.
Being legally blind doesn't necessarily hinder one from driving a car either. The blindness can be situational, for a situation that never occurs in a car.
But more to the point, this movie is a moaner, and blind people enjoy listening to porn as much as seeing people enjoy watching it, so even if he had had no vision at all, he could still "enjoy" the movie.
That's some great detective work they're doing. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Presidential Appointments are Important (Score:5, Informative)
A former RIAA lobbyist, Beryl Howell, is a now a federal judge ruling on these copyright extortion cases and siding with the extortionists:
This appointment mischief was covered previously [slashdot.org]on Slashdot.
As pointed out previously [slashdot.org], Beryl Howard is a Obama appointee, and not his first RIAA appointee.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always found this strange about the american justice system.
Could you please explain why a judge is elected through politics? It practically guarentees them to be partial.
There's supposed to be three independant branches of government, yet the legislative seems to control the judicial branch.
Re: (Score:2)
Against this backdrop, the founders wanted government powers not just split 3-ways, but with different sections of government less responsive to the "heat of passion" of the electorate. The House of Representatives was to be most responsive
Re: (Score:2)
>>Could you please explain why a judge is elected through politics? It practically guarentees them to be partial.
>>There's supposed to be three independant branches of government, yet the legislative seems to control the judicial branch.
Popular elections elect a lot of local judges, not congress.
Judges rarely face challenges in a lot of districts, but sometimes they'll do something that pisses off the electorate so much they lose the next election. It's a check-and-balance type thing.
Re: (Score:2)
However, your perception of how American judges are selected seems to be distorted. The first thing to realize is that there are two completely separate categories of judges in the American judicial system. The first two groups are state judges and federal judges (this particular judge is a federal judge). Federal judges are appointed by the President, subject to approval or rejection by the Senate. Once they are approved, they hold that seat for life unless they
Okay, I Get That The Guy Didn't Download It, But.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question isn't about the propriety but rather the risk.
The risk is probably pretty small if you know what you're doing.
It takes a $1 to rent a movie from Redbox and about an hour to rip it on a Core i7.
Well, for people that do pirate these movies, they might not want to make any trips or sign up for any services. Or, if they're "greedy" by most peoples' standards, they might just want to save a dollar.
And perhaps the time it takes them to download it and such is irrelevant to them. All they're really doing most of that time is waiting, and typically, they can do other things while they wait. Maybe it just doesn't matter to them if it'll take
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't do it, that won't get rid of your risk. Cue the stories about people without computers being sued.
Re:Okay, I Get That The Guy Didn't Download It, Bu (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the biggest reason people pirate movies is simply convenience. It's the same reason people use Redbox and Netflix. The problem with Redbox is the selection is extremely limited. It really only works if you are interested in the newest and most popular movies. Redbox also requires a physical trip, and while a few mile drive may not seem like much, a few miles is still a lot more than none (particularly if you live through Minnesota winters like me).
Netflix has a lot better selection, but it still doesn't come anywhere close to what is available to pirate (there are even out-of-print movies). A lot of Netflix's movies aren't available for streaming either, so a 15min torrent download is about 2 days faster than waiting 2 days for mail. I'm not sure what kind of internet you have that it takes days to download a movie, but a typical ripped/encoded movie torrent is only about 2GB.
Now I'm not saying these reasons excuse/justify movie piracy, I'm just giving some thoughts on why people still do it. I bet a lot of people don't even know about these anti-piracy lawsuits either (it seems like common knowledge to a slashdot user), and probably assume they aren't going to be sued for millions of dollars because that would be insane. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
See!? 2GB / 2 days = 12.13 kB/s. [google.com] Netflix is barely better than dial-up!
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing those numbers reinforce my suspicion that ISP backends in US are set up based on numbers gathered in the dial-up era, while the usage pattern have changed.
Re: (Score:3)
Downloading is Not Theft (Score:2)
"because of the nature of the swarm downloads . . . every infringer is simultaneously stealing copyrighted material."
No, not stealing. Stealing copyrighted material is going into the store and shoplifting a DVD. Don't they teach grammar in law school?
Re: (Score:2)
So, because the word "Stealing" was invented/defined before the internet was created, crimes committed online cannot be stealing?
What if you interpret stealing to be "Obtaining non-free content without paying for it". Now it doesn't matter whether you shoplift it, or download it. No matter which way you try to bend words, downloading movies is a form of theft. Do not be under the allusion that it isn't, or try to quote "Information wants to be free".
"Sticking it to the Man" is also not acceptable. If you do
Re:Downloading is Not Theft (Score:4, Insightful)
"What if you interpret stealing to be "Obtaining non-free content without paying for it". Now it doesn't matter whether you shoplift it, or download it. No matter which way you try to bend words, downloading movies is a form of theft"
Interpretation would not be enough. You would have to redefine the word theft.
You commit two major sins in this debate. The first is the straw man of assuming that just because someone objects to equating copyright infringement with theft that they approve of copyright infringement. The second straw man is that in your attempt to ridicule to opponent you misrepresent him by mentioning a coupel of his possible lesser important arguments, leaving out the biggest reason that copyright infringement is not theft.
Theft takes an object away from the original owner. If someone steals my car, the spiteful part of me may hope that the thief won't enjoy it, but the major reason I'm feeling pissed off is that I no longer have a car. Copyright infringement does no such thing. Since copyright infringement doesn't share the most important property of theft, it is not theft.
Copyright infringement, may take a sale away from the copyright holder. This is by no means certain, the infringer may not have legally licensed/purchased even if he couldn't get it for free. At best you can say that copyright infringement take away a potential sale. In some cases this is not even true, since some infringers does indeed end up purchasing the product.
So these two actions are different and the reason copyright holders want to equate them is an attempt to get more sympathy from the public. This attempt at redefining the word "theft" is disingenuous but you seem to have fallen for it nonetheless.
Note that this post does not mean that I approve of copyright infringement. It is a different action, but it may still be objectionable.
Re: (Score:3)
The quote said, "stealing copyrighted material". In English, this means one was stealing something that was copyrighted, since "copyrighted" is an adjective. All definitions of stealing accepted that I'm familiar with regard stealing as "taking away wrongfully". Stealing a DVD from a store is an example of this, since it satisfies that that the material stolen is copyrighted.
However, even if we were to look past this grammatical error and say, "they're also guilty of stealing," we create the problem touc
Re:Downloading is Not Theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Now it so happened in the days of old Edo, as Tokyo was once called, that the storytellers told marvelous tales of the wit and wisdom of His Honorable Honor, Ooka Tadasuke.
This famous judge never refused to hear a complaint, even if it seemed strange or unreasonable. People sometimes came to his court with the most unusual cases, but Ooka always agreed to listen. And the strangest case of all was the famous Case of the Stolen Smell.
It all began when a poor student rented a room over a tempura shop - a shop where fried food could be bought. The student was a most likeable young man, but the shopkeeper was a miser who suspected everyone of trying to get the better of him. One day he heard the student talking with one of his friends.
"It is sad to be so poor that one can only afford to eat plain rice," the friend complained.
"Oh," said the student, "I have found a very satisfactory answer to the problem. I eat my rice each day while the shopkeeper downstairs fries his fish. The smell comes up, and my humble rice seems to have much more flavor. It is really the smell, you know, that makes things taste so good."
The shopkeeper was furious. To think that someone was enjoying the smell of his fish for nothing! "Thief!" he shouted, "I demand that you pay me for the smells you have stolen."
"A smell is a smell," the young man replied. "Anyone can smell what he wants to. I will pay you nothing!"
Scarlet with rage, the shopkeeper rushed to Ooka's court and charged the student with theft. Of course, everyone laughed at him, for how could anyone steal a smell? Ooka would surely send the man about his business. But to everyone's astonishment, the judge agreed to hear the case.
"Every man is entitled to his hour in court," he explained. "If this man feels strongly enough about his smell to make a complaint, it is only right that I, as city magistrate, should hear the case." He frowned at the amused spectators.
Gravely, Ooka sat on the dais and heard the evidence. Then he delivered his verdict.
"The student is obviously guilty," he said severely. "Taking another person's property is theft, and I cannot see that a smell is different from any other property."
The shopkeeper was delighted, but the student was horrified. He was very poor, and he owed the shopkeeper for three month's smelling. He would surely be thrown into prison.
"How much money have you?," Ooka asked him.
"Only five mon, Honorable Honor," the boy replied. "I need that to pay my rent, or I will be thrown out into the street."
"Let me see the money," said the judge.
The young man held out his hand. Ooka nodded and told him to drop the coins from one hand to the other.
The judge listened to the pleasant clink of the money and said to the shopkeeper, "You have now been paid. If you have any other complaints in the future, please bring them to the court. It is our wish that all injustices be punished and all virtue rewarded.
"But most Honorable Honor," the shopkeeper protested, "I did not get the money! The thief dropped it from one hand to the other. See! I have nothing." He held up his empty hands to show the judge.
Ooka stared at him gravely. "It is the court's judgement that the punishment should fit the crime. I have decided that the price of the smell of food shall be the sound of money. Justice has prevailed as usual in my court."
Re: (Score:2)
Gibbon said the Roman empire failed... (Score:2)
Blind people can still hear (Score:2)
I know for a fact atleast some blind people go to the movies because they can still hear the story.
Some movies (with actual stories and dialog) are better suited for this than others (from Hollywood), but the sounds of a typical porn might just get the job done for some blind folk.
Re: (Score:2)
And because there's generally someone in the row behind you giving a full running commentary of what's going on.
oh come ON! (Score:2)
First:
"He is able to work using a pair of computer programs that read his e-mails aloud and magnify a portion of his computer screen."
Then:
"At least at the outset, he could remain anonymous. "
Yeah anonymous among all the other blind people going to work for a security company that uses an e-mail and a special computer screen.
The writer should have left his tools and the fact it's a IT firm.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but it does require some degree of explanation as to why somebody is passing off a movie which he didn't watch. The most likely explanation would be that he wasn't the one that was sharing it.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you know he didn't watch it? Lots of blind people enjoy movies, and even go to movie theatres. Who's to say he didn't get turned on by the moaning?
And he's not blind either, but legally blind. Big difference. So am I, and I read and type this without a problem.
This guy could use a computer through magnification. That means he could also watch video through magnification. Whether blurry or not, it couldn't have been blurrier than the text he's able to read, and likely better perceived quality tha
Re: (Score:2)
It sure makes it a lot less likely.
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
As someone that knows, you might find it interesting to understand the definition of "legally blind" vs. more functional blindness.
I lived with a blind girl for a while. She was functionally blind and could see only extremely bright and extremely high contrast objects. For the most part, she couldn't see anything and was around five years old before she realized other people could see things.
A friend of the blind girl's was "legally blind". This meant that she couldn't get a driver's license but otherwise was quite functional. She could certainly watch TV, go to movies and read large-print books.
Legally blind does not mean "can't watch a movie" in any respect.
Re: (Score:3)
As someone that knows, you might find it interesting to understand the definition of "legally blind" vs. more functional blindness.
I lived with a blind girl for a while. She was functionally blind and could see only extremely bright and extremely high contrast objects. For the most part, she couldn't see anything and was around five years old before she realized other people could see things.
A friend of the blind girl's was "legally blind". This meant that she couldn't get a driver's license but otherwise was quite functional. She could certainly watch TV, go to movies and read large-print books.
Legally blind does not mean "can't watch a movie" in any respect.
He needs emails read to him, and to have magnification. While "legally blind" does not alone constitute "cannot watch a movie", this guy in particular does not watch movies, because his legal blindness is close enough to "true" blindness that he can't see any of the imagery. So, while your point is valid, the particular circumstances of this case remain true... he wouldn't have downloaded a movie, because he doesn't/can't watch movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is him being blind mean he couldn't have still downloaded it?
Don't be so pig-headed - this is not about whether blind persons would be able to download stuff, of course they can, at least in principle. This is about two things: a) what motive could a person have to download a movie they can't possibly watch, and b) it doesn't look at all sympathetic going after a disabled person.
That said, though, "legally blind" does not mean that you can't see at all, only that your vision is sufficiently restricted to make you eligible to benifits.
Re: (Score:2)
Because all of those people probably have nearly identical stories. And, really, I don't think it'd be all that interesting.
how is it not greedy of the collectors who download more movies than they'll ever watch just because they can't bear to be bored for 5 seconds and they feel entitled because they were born?
That depends on someone's opinion of copyright and such.
Re: (Score:2)
mean if it's greedy of the copyright holders to protect their property, how is it not greedy of the collectors who download more movies than they'll ever watch just because they can't bear to be bored for 5 seconds and they feel entitled because they were born?
One doesn't preclude the other.
The guy can be guilty of downloading and sharing copyrighted porn movies and lying about it, and the copyright holders can be assholes at the same time
I know this is an alien concept for those who prefer black-and-white dualism, but it's nevertheless true.
So don't for a second think that if I slam a downloader that I side with the lawyers. Nor vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
Erh... where does that argument come from?
The point here is not that IP holders want to protect it. The point is that they use the legal equivalent of carpet bombing, not caring who they catch as collateral damage. Sue them all, let the court sort them out.
That guy is certainly not the only one innocently caught in this fallout. He's just "lucky" to be blind so it's blatantly obvious that the IP holders don't just want to protect their IP, they employ something that has become known on the battlefield as "s
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, the fact that it costs more to fight back than settle...
Re: (Score:3)
When copyright cartels get so greedy they don't care about collateral damage from forcing innocent bystanders to cough up exorbitant settlements just to avoid an expensive legal defense. Standing up for yourself is suicide. Unfortunately, the MAFIAA knows this and accordingly sees fit to not care who they are aiming at. They are goliath.
They've sued dead people and old grandmothers that couldn't possibly have been guilty. They even got some default judgements and pressed on knowing damn well they had no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Bruce Schneier [schneier.com] doesn't put a password on his WiFi either for that matter from what I hear.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course: There are some other tricks [ex-parrot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or that "legally blind" can still mean usable vision. He uses a screen magnifier according to the article.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to try an experiment. Find a TV with a 72inch or larger screen. Play a movie on it. Now, place the tip of your nose on the screen. Enjoy, you can see the movie better than he can with the magnifier.
Legally blind doesn't NECESSARILY mean a person can't watch a movie, but in many cases, it does. TFA also noted he has 1/100 normal vision, so about 20/2000 and that he doesn't watch movies.
Re: (Score:2)
If he can read text on a computer with that magnifier, I think he can make out female anatomy. And that notwithstanding, you think blind people can't listen to porn?
Not saying he did it, but his disability is definitely not a particularly strong alibi. And wow, his excuse that he never even thought to secure his home network doesn't help either his case or his credibility in *network security*!
Re: (Score:2)
Text on a computer screen doesn't move. You can read it character by character if necessary.
As for his network, it may just mean that he doesn't spout the usual cargo cult rules of thumb. A home network is a low value target, especially if the machines on it are independently secured (and they should be). He may not have considered the case of someone downloading porn and getting a shake down from a slimeball lawyer aided and abetted by the full weight of the U.S. courts (many people actually have no idea t
Re: (Score:2)
TFA also noted [...] that he doesn't watch movies.
Yes, imagine if the guys lawyers said "He's blind but he watches movies, so he couldn't possible have downloaded movies".
No, instead imagine the possibility of - I know it's hard to concieve, but purely hypothetically speaking - a lawyer lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I have an uncle who needs the fonts on his computer amped up to jumbo-size to see them at all and sits with his knees to his near-50" TV, he can't see well enough to drive and would likely be considered legally blind (hasn't been tested), but he can still watch things just fine if they're up close and big enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jeopardizing his career? (Score:4, Funny)
The mere suggestion that he swaps illicit smut online could jeopardize his career.
At very least, HR would have questioned the status of his being blind and taken away his handicapped parking privileges.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As silly as this sounds, there are actually reasonable times this should happen. Depending on the local law, legally blind persons can keep or earn a driver's license provided that they go through some approved adaptive driving program. These programs involve the use of accessibility devices like special glasses featuring mounted bifocal binoculars (yes, they are as hard to use as it sounds). Without these devices, the driving would be both illegal and unfeasible. In an effort not to lose them, I'd imagine
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully they would have done that the first time the *blind* guy parked his car in that spot...
Re: (Score:2)
Damn right. I bring pirated movies to work for the other guys in the IT department and talk about pirating stuff all the time. I just helped my boss get his satellite-pirating box working. Hasn't hurt my career. If anything it makes me look more l33t.
Re: (Score:2)
i'm posting from a braille terminal, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
"as they're being shown"
So does the license cover watching programmes you've recorded, at times they're no longer being shown on TV? And if so, does it matter wether you've actually recorded it yourself or wether you've simply downloaded the recording?
If you are simply entitled to watch everything that is being shown on TV, that could (and maybe should) be construed as a license to download everything that has already been shown - but not before ti's been shown.
Re: (Score:3)
You need the license to operate equipment capable of receiving broadcast television signals (including a video recorded connected to an antenna). You also need it to watch live streaming of television channels over the Internet (i.e. the stream is at the same time as the live broadcast). You do not need to to watch live streams of things that are not shown on TV (e.g. webcams), streams that are not live (e.g. iPlayer or 4oD streams of things that have already been on television), or to play back recording
Re: (Score:2)
Well at least he's upgraded to IPv6.