Hollywood Studios Caught Pirating Movies on BitTorrent
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
This shows that there exists employees of anti-pirate companies who themselves pirate. This doesn't prove that, say, the head of these organisations-- who are the ones setting these policies and conversing with the media-- are the ones doing the pirating.
I can't be a surprise to anyone that people's moral compass doesn't consistently align with their employers.
As with the last time a similar story made the rounds, I'm surprised by the cognitive dissonance among those that would sympathize with pirates: when it's Joe Homeowner, an IP address does not identify a person!, but when we find an IP out of Warner Brothers's netblock, the studio "is caught". Let's be honest. In all likelihood, this is an employee sitting around after hours abusing the bandwidth, or a compromised machine, or something -- Warner Brothers very likely didn't have a meeting and say "let's pirate some films".
(This does not reflect upon my views re: piracy/copyright nor which side I'd claim to fall on, which might surprise you after reading this comment, it's merely something I've observed from the pro-piracy camp.)
Adults aren't responsible for the actions of other adults (generally, and with respect to piracy). So while an IP address can identify a group of adults, it can't ever identify which one was committing piracy.
But corporations are typically responsible for the actions of their employees, that is, they are vicariously liable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability. Under at least some circumstances, if a studio's employees are committing piracy, the studio is also liable for that piracy. As long as the IP address corresponds to that corporation, it's "close enough" to signal legal liability (under some circumstances).
Edit: I don't wanna get in an internet fight, dude.
For a start, the company can be unequivocally identified, because they bought a block of IP addresses. The individual cannot, because the specific IP cannot identify an individual.
This isn't cognitive dissonance, and the massive distinction here is that a company is being held to account, not an employee.
tl;dr No cognitive dissonance: Corporations vet network users, 99% of homes don't.
You talk about the stuff that all defense attorneys do in the residential cases, then say for some reason a corporation should be better equipped to handle it. Which, maybe there's some relevancy to that, but still the root point is: we're using an IP address to identify a responsible party, which isn't a 100% science.
This also isn't a trial, it's a published article.
I'm applying the same standards to either situation. The way a corporate network is configured (excluding cases of incompetence) gives you pretty solid evidence that AN employee was in violation. You still have no idea which employee, which is why an individual suit like in the residential cases would be highly unfounded. Same standard when it comes to that rule. The only difference is that you can go after a corporation as a cohesive group, whereas you cannot go after a household as a cohesive group.
Like torture, I wouldn't wish it on my enemies. But I do wish it on those who user it on others.
Besides, unlike everyone they've attacked they can make it stop whenever they want simply by admitting an IP address is not user identifying.
In case this doesn't reflect my views re:piracy/copyright; I think that it's ethically wrong but the greater crime is disproportionate lawsuits, inappropriate DMCA takedowns, and lobbying for laws that remove freedom of speech from the internet.
In fact, it's often argued any party to find this MUST sue infringing parties, for fear of otherwise losing their copyright. That magically seems a non-issue in these cases. It's not anyone else's cognitive dissonance about the morality of piracy or inferring Warner Brothers is any more guilty than an individual accused of the same. It's a sense of anger because they preach about responsibility and issue lawsuits under the guise of curbing illegal activity, while letting others off because...
Why do they let Warner Brother's off again? Oh yes, because they're also a giant media company on equal footing and their own lawyers and things like copyright protection, moral responsibility, and curbing piracy are all bullshit. And given I imagine they know that such cases happen, one has to assume they know it's bullshit. That's why people use "caught". They regularly say a litany of things, none of which seem true given what's actually happening.