[Breakdown]

Almost as ridiculous as copyright laws.

 

[LostOne.TR]

That's pretty ludicrous. Glad it's getting appealed.

On a better note, the RIAA has been told to pay near $108,000 for the legal fees of a single-mom they had falsely accused of downloading mp3s. (I've read that her legal fees were around $300,000 though) She is now on the offensive, and launching a case to sue the RIAA. source

 

[Edwood]

So, hacking and stealing is legal now?

How ironic.

-Ed

 

[oicdn]

It's a ridiculous ruling, no doubt about it.....

That said, is anything we do online really secure or private? I mean honestly, anybody that thinks they're "secure" online, regardless of what computer or network they're on, is seriously delusional.

 

[ClieOS]

Security is of course a relative term like almost everything in life. Only death is certain, that I am sure of.

 

[gpalmer]

Interesting, I was at one company which hired a security consultant to make sure their systems were secure. One of the pieces of software he worked on performed customer address formatting and correction. Unfortunately, he decided that it was a good idea to mail a copy of every address to himself. He then offered the customer list to one of their competitors who alerted the owners. Long story short, the FBI got involved, got him to transfer the data over state lines and busted him. He got fines and jail out of it. Man, it would suck to be him after hearing about this!!!!

 

[Uncle Erik]

This is an example of a Court making, in my opinion, a mistake. However, this is not the threat many think it is. Judges are ultimately accountable, there is a mechanism for appeal, it is done on the public record, and this is the system as it is supposed to be used. The system makes mistakes, but there are ways to correct them. That's how things are supposed to work.

What bothers me is the seizure of private information without warrant, without a Court Order, without Court review, without appeal, with zero recourse, and zero accountability.

That is the real threat to liberty.

 

[nickdawg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is no different than a police officer obtaining an item of evidence from a suspect's place of business without a warrant. Actually, it's even worse, because it was taken by someone with absolutely no connection to an LEO! This "disgruntled employee" stole information from his company (which is industrial espionage last I checked) and he should be prosecuted for that, and the MPAA should be cited for knowingly receiving stolen property.

I agree. This is a(pardon my language) ass backwards court ruling. The "disgruntled employee" IS guilty with stealing information from the company. Plus, I'd think he should get extra charges just because the stolen information contained personal information, which was put in danger. And the MPAA is guilty of receiving stolen property. If they ever tried to use this information in a future court case, it should be thrown out because of the illegal method used to obtain it.

What I find ironic about this is the MPAA is obtaining stolen files. If the files in question had been pirated movies or ripped DVD files, the MPAA would be among the first foaming at the mouth about "how it's illegal" and the iffenders should be charged. <sarcasam>But who cares about this. Afterall, it's only personal information like email addresses.

</sarcasm>

 

[marvin]

Found the decision.

Also Councilman, which was a nearly identical case.

It's pretty easy to see how the judge made his wrong decision on the Wiretap Act portion. He apparently didn't know about the ruling in Councilman and applied the logic the 9th Circuit used in their previous rulings on server stored e-mails. Doesn't look like Valence Media brought it up since it's being used as the basis for their appeal to the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit also noted that it doesn't matter how long the e-mails are stored on the server, they still count as stored communication. Combine the two and a lack of knowledge on the specifics of e-mail transmission, mix for a few minutes, and you get the ruling in Bunnell vs RIAA.

It's also easy to see how Valence Media was denied on the trade secrets claim. They failed to explaining how the information stolen constituted trade secrets, so the judge denied their claim there.

 

[CodeToad]

The real jist of this and the whole RIAA thing is that they think they are special. You know, instead of changing their business models like the rest of us had to do; brokers displaced by the internet. Realtors, stock brokers, wholesalers etc, etc, etc.

Noooo, instead WE have to accommodate their outmoded business model and they will impose and imprison all of us with their copy protection horsepoo until we stand up and say enough is enough.