I never thought you of all people would argue that taking something that doesn’t belong to you isn’t theft.

Taking something that is just lying around will get your arrested in NYC. it’s a common sting.

As opposed to making your own copy of somebody’s else property with their permission, which is such a serious problem, we should punish the innocent along with the guilty, just to be sure nobody gets away with something.

it’s almost beautiful how perfectly wrong you got this.

You don’t need to know who somebody is to bill their account for usage. In fact, you don’t want to know. You don’t verify that usage was done by the account holder. You just charge based on the account. That’s fine for a private contract, just not for the law.

“What the court ruling suggests is that the subscriber is not responsible for how the service is used, which is against the ToS for almost every ISP. ”

So what? ToS are not laws. A “no shirt no service” sign does not make it illegal to be shirtless. Failure to arrest someone for shirtlessness does not make the “no shirt” sign invalid, and failure to fine someone for infringement does not invalidate or even address ToS.

As always, I’m impressed by the link between being worried about piracy and being foggy in general.

To be more specific, they are making up fruit. They are inventing fake crimes to punish the powerless, and even punishing powerless people who haven’t committed those fake crimes, rather than addressing the powerful.

Let me clarify. What I meant to say is that it’s better to prosecute an innocent person than nobody at all.

I also take this attitude with regard to children. I give them all time outs all the time regardless of whether they’ve done anything wrong. That way, I know none of them have gotten away with anything.

Of course, some might argue that anything that punishes the innocent has no value as a deterrent, because you can’t avoid the punishment by complying. To that I say: Derp.

Either he doesn’t understand it in which case he is indeed so fucking stupid. See his previous commentary – any of it, more or less.

Or he does, and doesn’t care in which case he’s just a dishonest bastard refusing to openly admit he doesn’t give a rat’s ass how many innocent get accused as long as filesharers get caught.

By definition the latter is called a “fascist”. “Baghdad Bob”-Anon admitted to the latter and has to be acknowledged the balls for that.

Bobmail is either clueless – willfully so – or lacks even the balls shown by Anon.

This coming from someone who’s been lying through his teeth about what the law says, can’t grasp that law supercedes a ToS, doesn’t appear to know what a “legal precedent” is, how “messenger immunity” is understood to function, and can not understand the concept of “burden of proof”?

We’d love to see you place facts on the table, bobmail. regale us with some…for once.