http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/unmasking-copyright-scofflaws/The courts are basically saying it is okay to strip off anonymity for suspected copyright infringers. This will lean into a ton of lawsuits as the *AA organizations sent out a half a million requests to ISP's to learn the people who are copying music and movies peer-to-peer just so they can send out threatening emails and letters.
The appeals court ruled in the RIAA’s favor after balancing a constitutional right to remain anonymous against a copyright owner’s right to disclosure of the identity of a possible “trespasser of its intellectual property interest.”
“To the extent that anonymity is used to mask copyright infringement or to facilitate such infringement by other persons, it is unprotected by the First Amendment,” the appeals court wrote.
And even if a defendant claims a fair-use right to the material in question, content owners have a right to learn the identities to commence a lawsuit, the court wrote.
“And although Doe 3 indicates that he ‘may’ have had a permissible purpose for copying and sharing the music found in his file-sharing folder,” the court wrote, “any assertion of such a purpose raises questions of credibility and plausibility that cannot be resolved while Doe 3 avoids suit by hiding behind a shield of anonymity.”
Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/unmasking-copyright-scofflaws/#ixzz0mmsHZknr
(Side note, Wired is awesome since copying that block automatically added that block to the end)
And yet, I'm actually comfortable with this.
Right now, sharing music and movies is questionable. There is the entire idea of right to share or First Sale which aren't in question. But, that should be decided on an individual basis, not through the screen of "you can't find me". If someone has the right to share music or movies, then they should be able to prove it.
Of course, most people who share those things can't afford the court costs to prove they can. And, probably most cases, they don't have the right.
If you don't want to be sued, make sure you have the right to do it. In most cases, I "share" movies I download simply because of how the bittorrent protocol works. Mostly, I do it to download movies I really don't want to spend the time to rip (or Fluffy trashed the DVD again). I don't do it often and I'll probably stop even for the lazy ones. Though, in my case, I can go to the file cabinet next to my desk and pull out a DVD for every movie I download. I'm picky that way, but I honestly feel that I do have some privileged to shift my DVD's to my media center. And not through that bullshit DRM-laden version they offer online or with the "digital copy" packs that require me to use Windows (which I don't use) and Windows Media Player or Macs (which I don't use) with iTunes (which I despise with a passion).
I'm trying to cut down on my DVD purchases. Mainly because I want to vote with my dollars, but sometimes I encounter that need for instant gratification verses believes in morals. Remarkably, it isn't as easy as saying "I won't buy this movie I really want because the MPAA sucks". In some ways, I wish it was that easy. But, I'm just one person. I don't buy many DVD's anymore (at least until children show up, I suspect) but I'm slowly and consciously voting with my dollars. For me, mass lawsuits for obscene amounts of money means no more money for me.
But, I still agree with the ruling.
