A district judge last week denied two activist groups the chance to file a supporting motion in a copyright case. In a stinging and derisive rejoinder, he compared their complaints to those of a spoilt boy.
...
It's part of a court case that stateside ISPs and rights-holders are watching with keen interest.Cox Communications is the only major US ISP not to participate to the "Six Strikes" Copyright Alert System, where an ISP acts on "red flag" knowledge of a persistent infringer by kicking them off their network. Cox preferred to implement its own "10+" graduated response program. Two music publishers, BMG and Round Hill, weren't impressed, and a year ago they sued Cox, arguing that they never kicked even the most hardcore freetard off their networks. As evidence, they picked the IP addresses of the 250 most persistent freetards on Cox's network over the preceding six months.
"Cox directly profits from repeat infringers," they argued in their lawsuit. "Cox collects significant fees from its subscribers and subscribers that frequently upload media content often pay higher monthly premiums for higher bandwidth. Plaintiffs' agent has identified – and notified Cox of – over 200,000 repeat infringers on the Cox network. On information and belief, the number of actual repeat infringers on the Cox network not known to Plaintiffs or their agent is substantially higher."
...
Enter the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge, two slacktivist groups who howled (predictably) that the internet would break if Cox did what it promised and kicked off the most high volume torrenters. Both groups applied to file amicus, or 'Friend of the Court', briefs. But Judge O'Grady rejected the applications, saying they were irrelevant.Interestingly, he went even further, apparently mocking the applications, and arguing that the two "digital rights" groups were fundamentally compromised.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @01:33PM
To see such a politically incorrect story posted here without a sarcastic rebuttal embedded in TFS.
Incidentally I agree with the judge.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @01:50PM
Incidentally you don't really exist.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday November 26 2015, @08:13PM
Incidentally you don't really exist.
Ah, it's "Jarring Binks"! Definitely does not exist, or if it does, should not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @06:57PM
You agree with the judge that sacking DMCA protection for ISPs is a good idea? Are you completely fucking retarded or just evil?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @04:03PM
Coincidentally, possibly due to having zero evidence that proves otherwise, I think the actual motivation behind your agreeing is just as intellectually unflattering as is the case with worst freetards doing the opposite.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 26 2015, @01:52PM
Let's put aside whether the judge is "right" or not. The "digital rights" groups are compromised. Interesting. I thought that was the whole point. We have a bunch of obsolete organizations capitalizing on ages old technology, trying to twist modern tech to pay into a broken business model. The whole concept of copyright has been perverted from a decade or two, to a lifetime plus most of a century. It's insane. Fundamentally compromised? THAT IS A GOOD THING!!
But, the "rights holders" are also the "money holders", so they can afford to buy more laws, and more judgements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @05:23PM
Maybe it wasn't clear, but that judge did not use the word "compromised." That's the writer for the Register's word choice, the same writer who also called them "slacker groups." The judge said they were being self-serving, comparing their arguments to a child whining about losing internet access because he didn't do his homework. Which says more about the judge's paternalistic view of the law than it does about PK's and EFF's arguments.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Friday November 27 2015, @12:29AM
The Register's Andrew Orlowski is (in my view) quite a good tech reporter, but he is a very firm copyright maximalist.
I suspect he views life plus 70 years as being too short. He also tends to use derisive terms (freetard) for those who would like to have a debate about the merits of IP laws, and don't share his views.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Thursday November 26 2015, @08:30PM
Let's put aside whether the judge is "right" or not.
No, lets not.
Lets recognize that the judge tried to remove the Congressional mandated safe harbor clause, and mandate that carriers and ISPs monitor and control everything that crosses their wires. Because of this, the judge will be overturned by higher courts. Watch and see.
He also probably gets a legal bitchslap from the higher courts for snubbing an amicus brief, which is seldom ever done. The judge is free to ignore an amicus brief at any time, but by attacking it, he betrays his bias.
He gets overturned. He's an idiot.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by timbim on Thursday November 26 2015, @09:27PM
And the Judge used to be a copyright lawyer for Disney.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by isostatic on Thursday November 26 2015, @01:54PM
God how I hate that site. It's a shame, they actually cover IT industry news, but I just can't bring myself to read it, their articles are like youtube comments pages
Where do soylenters get their timely news? Basically the same stories from The Register, but written professionally?
(Score: 5, Funny) by chromas on Thursday November 26 2015, @02:08PM
Slashdot.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @02:43PM
but written professionally
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @07:29PM
Thank you, Ted, that was the joke.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @08:09PM
No, I thought it was, in alphabetical order:
Ars Technica
The Register
Slashdot
and occasionally places of greater merit.
(Score: 3, Informative) by moondoctor on Thursday November 26 2015, @02:25PM
Been wondering the same thing. I think techdirt is pretty good, but a bit heavily focused on copyright and privacy.
Been a while since I went to The Register, and wow, you're right. It's really gone completely down the toilet. The whiny frat-boy things has gone mad.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 26 2015, @02:37PM
Read any old rag - if they publish news, read it. When a story pops up that you find interesting, take the title and/or the most relevant passage from the story, and paste it into a search engine. Browse down through the results, pick the more credible looking sources, and you've probably found one of the main sources for your rag's stories. Look at that source, see if they have an RSS feed. C/P that feed into an RSS reader. Rinse and repeat until you feel you have enough credible original sources to keep up with.
Alternatively, you can feed those sources into an aggregator such as https://www.ighome.com/ [ighome.com]
Another alternative, is to feed those sources into Calibre ebook reader - http://calibre-ebook.com/ [calibre-ebook.com]
Or, just take a story submission right here on SN. Take the most relevant passages from the story, and search for them. I've done that with a number of SN stories, and Slashdot before that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fritsd on Thursday November 26 2015, @03:22PM
Actually isostatic, the Register is very valuable to practice and hone your critical reading skills.
I was about 2 paragraphs into this article, for example, when I decided: "this is another Andrew Orlowski article".
You can always tell from the spin (I don't look at the author of an article that I read, normally)
Same for Lewis Page. Everything you read has the bias of the author, that's normal. And the authors of the Register come across as real professionals even if they talk too much about antarctic fish-eating birds (boffins).
They have the gift of the word, which is uncommon.
But their biases might be slightly different than the other 99.9% of the world's population, to put it mildly ;-)
And it's interesting to read what shills write, to find out which memes they're paid to inject into our collective consciousness.
But it isn't good for the reader's bloodpressure, no. On the other hand I get quietly proud whenever I can pinpoint a paragraph and say: "this article is bullshit, because X and Y" instead of "this article is bullshit, because Orlowski wrote it".
If you want something more neutral, buy a subscription to Linux Weekly News [lwn.net] , it's worth it.
And as a PS to you: Duty Calls [xkcd.com] :-)
(Score: 2) by n1 on Thursday November 26 2015, @06:33PM
You're spot on with this, although I do find El Reg a chore to read more and more due to the lack of subtlety.
Would also like to add, Tim Worstall does the same for me, he's about the only person I routinely pick out across all sites that publish his 'work'. He has his own brand of shilling and spin that sticks out a mile to me.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Thursday November 26 2015, @08:38PM
Boffins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boffin [wikipedia.org]
Hint: its not a bird, never has been.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday November 26 2015, @09:22PM
Blimey.. "learn something everyday".. and that while *I*'m a boffin (technically). I bow my head in shame.
I was thinking of these critters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffin [wikipedia.org], but that's wrong too, as they're arctic, not antarctic as I wrote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @04:34PM
Fritsd has it right. It's an Andrew Orlowski article, and he has it in for Google and EFF among others.
No organization should go unscrutinized but Orlowski whines about Google and EFF (Google's lapdog) too often. The quality of most Register articles is quite good.
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Thursday November 26 2015, @04:34PM
Same story was covered by TorrentFreak
https://torrentfreak.com/cox-has-no-dmca-safe-harbor-protection-judge-rules-151124/ [torrentfreak.com]
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday November 26 2015, @10:11PM
Hey... love your Star Wars reviews... very funny!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday November 26 2015, @05:22PM
I saw a story about this decision a few days ago on Techdirt. [techdirt.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @09:52PM
Pipedot.
Wait. Timely? Whingepool.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 27 2015, @02:18PM
I try to avoid them as well, because the titles and articles often seem like so much gibberish. This one seemed sort of readable so I threw it in the hopper.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SubiculumHammer on Thursday November 26 2015, @03:28PM
Does EFF sometimes support stupid causes. Sure.
Does EFF fight some important causes? Definitely.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @06:56PM
Does EFF sometimes support stupid causes. Sure.
Such as?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @05:19PM
The main issue I see is that i don't think these media companies, some of whom are also isp's. Know the fact they are opening a HUGE can of worms here. This goes far beyond just being accountable for the types of files their user's download.
It also includes everything everyone on their network posts, visits, and watches.
They will have to monitor everything a user of their service posts anywhere online for the off chance that in any state or even country it is illegal to do so. Possibly even past instances of such.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday November 26 2015, @05:42PM
> They will have to monitor everything
Maybe this is exactly what The Internet was meant to be. Back to your telescreen, now, please.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @06:52PM
They don't realize it's either going to kill them or they will have to kill the internet other than a few shopping sites. Which in turn will kill them anyway. Who will pay 40-100+ a month for a service just to be able to buy something off of amazon or new-egg?
Whatever cash they think they are going to gain by forcing people have to buy media will be eaten up by purchasing the hardware and paying the salaries of the needed monitor's. Automated tools won't be enough because they are going to demand 100% protection against the possibility of being dragged into legal battles.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:30AM
Or, they simply give law and copyright enforcement groups private, extrajudicial, unfettered access to user data as an insurance policy. I know, that is STASI style, but so are gag orders.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday November 26 2015, @10:34PM
...This goes far beyond just being accountable for the types of files their user's download.
It also includes everything everyone on their network posts, visits, and watches.
They will have to monitor everything a user of their service posts anywhere online...
Don't the TLAs require this already?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday November 26 2015, @05:24PM
If somebody in that court case brought up the concept that unauthorized downloading = lost sale of the media, and what, if anything, the judge remarked about that.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @07:09PM
This Andrew Orlowski person is an obvious shill, intentionally or not. He even uses the word "freetard" in one of the comments on the article, as if the copyright maximalist thugs have any legitimacy whatsoever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @07:14PM
Imaginary property is so real, men have killed for it!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26 2015, @08:15PM
Over the years he has worked himself into a frenzy. His prominence on that site is one of the reasons it isn't in my bookmarks anymore. Editorial viewpoint is one thing, but empty name calling and unsubstantiated insults are just narcissism and I can get that anywhere.
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Friday November 27 2015, @11:33PM
Same here. I stopped reading the site quite some time ago; saw a couple of his clickbait articles, frothed at the mouth a little then paused to think why the article was on the site: advertising hits. I was blocking their damned advertising anyway but now I just don't go to the site at all.
No idea about US newspapers, but in the UK a red masthead indicates a tabloid (i.e. populist churnalism). I wonder if this is because they're only useful to wedge under the short leg of the table to stop it wobbling? Anyway, if it has a red masthead, it's full of crap and The Register is a hyperlinked version of The Sun, minus the tits and bloody Rupert Murdoch. Sadly, it's one of the few popular UK tech sites. Ars Technica have a UK site but as a relatively young sibling to a US site, the content is mostly mirrored with the currency changed. There's also hexus.net [hexus.net], though I'm not sure to what extent they're involved with (UK retailer) Scan Computers [scan.co.uk] beyond their weird 'free postage if you comment on the forum' deal in terms of knowing if they're in any way objective.