Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday February 21 2014, @10:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the A-leashed-hyena-is-still-a-hyena dept.

dbot writes

"In the latest turn in an ongoing legal dispute, Canadian ISP TekSavvy has been ordered to hand over the IP addresses information of subscribers allegedly engaging in copyright infringement of Voltage Pictures works.

While it doesn't look like a great decision on the surface (an IP address does not uniquely identify an infringer), the court specifically said it wants to sign off on the wording of any contact notices issued by Voltage to prevent extortionary "Copyright Troll" messages. It will be interesting to see if this new decision scales."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Absinth on Friday February 21 2014, @11:25PM

    by Absinth (2711) on Friday February 21 2014, @11:25PM (#4601)

    Yeah so I lurked on the other site for a while, thought I'd participate here after the beta fuckup. Submitted a story and sorry if I cited populist media but their cover was available first and the original court decision was linked too. Don't know what I did wrong not to get approved aside from leaving the other place. Hope you enjoy polishing each other's scepters, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the show.

    Here's my original submission http://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid= 232 [soylentnews.org] and for the TLDR,
    the official court ruling http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/i tem/59907/index.do?r=AAAAAQAHdm9sdGFnZQAAAAAB [fct-cf.gc.ca]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Offtopic=3, Interesting=1, Underrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2014, @11:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2014, @11:29PM (#4603)

    -1 Off-Topic

    There's a back-log of submissions. http://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=list [soylentnews.org] You just submitted yours today, this one we're commenting on right now was most likely submitted before you.

    • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Absinth on Friday February 21 2014, @11:38PM

      by Absinth (2711) on Friday February 21 2014, @11:38PM (#4606)

      I actually checked the backlog first, saw dupes popping a few hours later, but yeah fuck timestamps since they can be hacked way easier than Ellingson Mineral Company's Gibson.

      theirs
        TekSavvy ordered to hand over subscriber info
      On Friday February 21, @07:38PM
        Canadian ISP orderd to ID downloaders
      On Friday February 21, @09:55PM

      Mine
        Blame Canada for its position on net privacy
      On Friday February 21, @05:42PM

      • (Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Saturday February 22 2014, @02:18AM

        by GeminiDomino (661) on Saturday February 22 2014, @02:18AM (#4655)

        Or it could be that yours [soylentnews.org] omitted most of the important aspects of the story, and reads like a Voltage press release. Just a thought.

        --
        "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2014, @04:34AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2014, @04:34AM (#4685)
        "blame canada!" is a much more inflamatory and not very informative headline than "TekSavvy ordered to"

        I have no problem with obvious flamebait bent articles being skipped over for other dupes.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by combatserver on Saturday February 22 2014, @12:08AM

    by combatserver (38) on Saturday February 22 2014, @12:08AM (#4615)

    "Don't know what I did wrong not to get approved aside from leaving the other place."

    Relax--two people submitted the same story, someone had to be rejected.

    To answer your question, it appears to me that the reason your submission was rejected over the the one above was a matter of formatting. Embedded links in the body of the text are a plus (it makes things easier for the editors, as well as give YOU the opportunity to specify where the links should be). Adding links at the end of the text can lead to confusion. Integrate them into the body of text.

    Other than that, the only other thing I noticed was the inclusion of a paragraph break--you'd be surprised how much of an effect that can have on the reader. A paragraph break is roughly the same thing as saying "Stop, and think about that before moving on". When condensing information into a small body of text, that could have a huge effect on comprehension.

    Aside from those two things I noticed, the content of your links were perfectly acceptable, at least to me. Don't give up because of one rejected submission--the quality of your submission was there, the delivery just needed a little tweaking.

    On a related note, the editing staff has been discussing implementing a means to return submissions to the author for re-submission, rather than outright rejecting them. I believe this has been in the works right from the beginning.

    --
    I hope I can change this later...
    • (Score: 1) by Absinth on Saturday February 22 2014, @12:37AM

      by Absinth (2711) on Saturday February 22 2014, @12:37AM (#4630)
      Yeah I tried to include in my original post but it didn't seem to work...
      then I noticed Allowed HTML but I couldn't figure out how to edit my submission.

      On another note, I understand that the Court's decision includes safeguards, that there are limitations to how much money copyright holders can go for per infringement but how far can this end up going? Will newer, slacker legislation come up when requests clog up federal courts? Will cops show up on my doorstep for a viral vine video with The Traveler playing in the background?
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by combatserver on Saturday February 22 2014, @01:31AM

        by combatserver (38) on Saturday February 22 2014, @01:31AM (#4649)

        "...then I noticed Allowed HTML but I couldn't figure out how to edit my submission."

        I have been composing my submissions in the submission form with "plain old text" selected, and periodically backing it up in a .rtf file as I go along. Add in your HTML (I've been avoiding HTML paragraph breaks as they seem a little buggy at times), and then "Preview" to test the HTML and visual layout. Backup in the .rtf, rinse repeat.

        When it's good to go, submit--once they are submitted, you cannot edit your submission. (as I said, hopefully this will change in the near future)

        Having an unedited backup of your original submission allows you to determine what changes were made by the editors.

        Look forward to your next submission!

        --
        I hope I can change this later...