Just what is Congress illegally downloading?

reply to post by BadNinja68


And again we go back to how do you know who was actually using those ip addys at that time? if people want to use the "ip dosen't equal a person" line then it has to apply to everyone not just joe public.

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by BadNinja68

 

And again we go back to how do you know who was actually using those ip addys at that time? if people want to use the "ip dosen't equal a person" line then it has to apply to everyone not just joe public.

edit on 8-1-2012 by aivlas because: (no reason given)

What's interesting is that you would rather use imagination and assumption even going so far as to fabricate elaborate stories ; "what if they had a subscription? " "what if they were on BREAK?"

and then turn around and accuse OTHERS of not having "all the facts" and basing our opinion on conjecture.

lol.

The facts are that the government made it illegal to file share, they have even charged children if you recall. The facts are that people who work in these buildings presumably Public officials or ones who work for public officials are acquiring intellectual property through a means they themselves deemed illegal.

YES, the disinfo shills HAVE indeed been getting oftly desperate of late...

reply to post by femalepharoe


No im using the same defense the fileshares have been spitting since the fines started coming down the thing is im just not a complete hypocrite and give the same defense to all people.

arstechnica.com...


www.globalregulatoryenforcementlawblog.com...

Public officials or ones who work for public officials are acquiring intellectual property through a means they themselves deemed illegal.

cleaners and janitors make laws? im confused

YES, the disinfo shills HAVE indeed been getting oftly desperate of late...

And that seems to be a dig at a response to something that it seems you decided not to read, I advise you to read it.

reply to post by aivlas


shill,

this is true. But the computers are located in the same building correct? The building that drafts laws?

Janitors? Are we going back into pretend conjecture script writing.

It possibly could have been a janitor, a janitor who has a private computer (or just downloads porn and seasons of Dexter on other's computers from work) during his lunch break - according to your analysis...

Why so many edits? Did the propaganda not sound right the first time(s) around?

reply to post by femalepharoe


LMAO spelling and adding some links for you, what a petty thing to pick on.

Janitors? Are we going back into pretend conjecture script writing.

I'm saying we don't no who downloaded what, it could of been anyone in the world.
Your saying it's specific law makers with no proof to back your claims up.

I guess you didn't read the links I provided so here is a qoute from the second one.

In VPR Internationale v. Does 1-1017 (C.D. Ill.), Judge Baker opined that Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses do not -- by themselves -- qualify as personal information, capable of accurately identifying an individual. While this decision is a landmark ruling for the mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in that it may spell the end of the “pay-up-or-else-schemes”, it may have broader data privacy implications.

www.globalregulatoryenforcementlawblog.com...