Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MPAA Spying Case To Be Appealed

samzenpus posted about 5 years ago | from the let's-see-what-you-got-there dept.

Security 132

esocid writes "Back in 2005, the MPAA hired Robert Anderson, a former associate of TorrentSpy's owner, to illegally obtain internal emails and trade secrets. He did so by routing the email from the internal server to his own Gmail account. He subsequently sold 34 pages of stolen information for $15,000 to the MPAA. TorrentSpy owner Justin Bunnel sued them for spying, but lost the case due to a ruling that stated it was not illegal since the information was not intercepted under the Wiretap Act. The EFF called this decision a 'dangerous attempt to circumvent privacy laws,' since it implies that the unauthorized interception of anyone's personal email is legal. The appeal could have ramifications for MPAA president Dan Glickman, as the decision is expected around the time of his contract renewal."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Maybe it's the wrong charge. (5, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | about 5 years ago | (#27562911)

Maybe it's not right to consider it "spying" because of the Wiretap excuse... but what about considering it "theft of intellectual property"?

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (1, Redundant)

LeafStorm (1471173) | about 5 years ago | (#27562959)

...but what about considering it "theft of intellectual property"?

It would be very ironic - the MPAA, who is always accusing movie pirates of committing "theft of intellectual property", being charged with that in a court of law.

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27563031)

Yes, indeed it would be very ironic. Thanks for clarifying that one, I don't know where the world would be without Captain Obvious!

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (1)

bami (1376931) | about 5 years ago | (#27563797)

Yes, indeed it would be very ironic. Thanks for clarifying that one, I don't know where the world would be without Captain Obvious!

"Whooosh!" never sounded so elaborate!

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | about 5 years ago | (#27563103)

Oh, yeah, that's right. "Theft of intellectual property" isn't a legal charge.

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (1)

Decameron81 (628548) | about 5 years ago | (#27563159)

Oh, yeah, that's right. "Theft of intellectual property" isn't a legal charge.

"intellectual property" as in stealing books and paintings?

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (4, Funny)

Volante3192 (953645) | about 5 years ago | (#27563193)

No, cause books and paintings are tangible.

Now, if you were able to reach into someone's brain and steal the synapses that recorded how to create that book or painting, then yeah, that'd be theft of intellectual property.

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | about 5 years ago | (#27563757)

well then. it Ãs possible. actually using those stolen synapses, though.. phew. if someone could figure that one out, they wouldn't even -need- to steal anything. they'd be filthy rich!

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | about 5 years ago | (#27564259)

I always thought taking brains out of someone's head was piracy, but I guess it is actually theft.

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 5 years ago | (#27564803)

I always thought taking brains out of someone's head was piracy, but I guess it is actually theft.

Theft is the right word, unless you are a Zombie Pirate, then it's just dinner. "Mmmmm...BRAAAIIINS!!

Or if the brain is taken by a Mad Scientist, then it's just research. *Zzzzaaappp!* "It LIVES!!!!

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (2, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | about 5 years ago | (#27563195)

Books and paintings are physical objects. "Intellectual property" would apply only if you're copying them.

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 years ago | (#27564165)

Copyright infringement is, however, and any creative work - including an email - is copyrighted automatically by the sender. The recipient receives an implicit license to do anything normally associated with receiving an email, but no one else does. If you intercept an email, you are copying a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright owner. I believe the fine for wilful infringement currently stands at $7,500 per work in the USA. The fact that the MPAA has engaged in lawsuits prosecuting people for doing exactly this could almost certainly be used to justify a claim that they knew it was illegal, that they did it for financial gain, and all of the other requirements for the maximum fine.

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (2, Interesting)

rts008 (812749) | about 5 years ago | (#27564927)

While I agree that it would be short term satisfaction to see them hoist by their own petard, I think it would set precedent in there favor for the long run. Society would lose more in the long term than the gain from short term gratification.

I think they need bitch slapped hard for this, but most likely they will get a 'stern' talking to and not much more. Nothing with real teeth in it to seriously dissuade them. I also hope I aam wrong, but....

Too shaky, no good (1)

LandruBek (792512) | about 5 years ago | (#27565359)

As sweet as it might taste to use copyright against them, that sure sounds like a bad tack.

First, you can only copyright works with some creative content. So that means the MPAA would be off the hook for, hypothetically, a short email containing a one-word noncreative reply like "yes" -- such an email could perhaps be damning information, but arguably devoid of creative content and therefore not protected by copyright. I don't like the sound of that (that you can spy on me as long as I'm not writing anything creative).

Second, the Copy Right has numerous loopholes, such as fair use for purposes of critical commentary, noncommercial educational use, satire, etc. So the MPAA might try to mount some sort of fair use defense. I don't like the sound of that either (that you can spy on me as long as it is "fair use.")

Basically, copyright law is the wrong law to use here. It has got to be something more along the lines of the Wiretap Act or the Stored Communications Act.


Re:Too shaky, no good (1)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | about 5 years ago | (#27565429)


Creativity is a low bar.

Re:Too shaky, no good (1)

LandruBek (792512) | about 5 years ago | (#27565603)

I agree, it is a low bar, but don't you agree it isn't low enough? Copyright essentially protects creative work, not information; it's privacy law that protects you and your information (papers, effects, etc.). IP laws were not designed to protect privacy, and my spidey sense says they wouldn't do that task well.

If current privacy law does not provide adequate protection, then we need better law. I don't mind if we can squeak by using a (silly IMO) copyright defense, but that's basically a workaround, an ugly hack. I'm not above resorting to ugly hacks for temporary relief, but if the law needs to be improved, I hope for that too.

Re:Too shaky, no good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27565807)

With the shit the MPAA collectively puts out every year, I do have to say Creativity is a very low bar.

Re:Too shaky, no good (2, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about 5 years ago | (#27566105)

The collection of e-mails would be a copyrighted work, even if some of the individual messages didn't contain very much aesthetic value. Copyright works don't have to be creative; there are a lot of factual works like pages of an almanac that contain simple facts about their subjects.

hired Robert Anderson, a former associate of TorrentSpy's owner, to illegally obtain internal emails and trade secrets. He did so by routing the email from the internal server to his own Gmail account.

As sweet as it might taste to use copyright against them, that sure sounds like a bad tack.

How about prosecution of the former associate under computer fraud and abuse act, for gaining access without authorization, and charges against MPAA for conspiracy to due the same, plus charges of Tortuous Interference against the MPAA for intentionally paying a former associate of the site to do things they knew (or should have known) would be against their agreement?

Realizing full well TorrentSpys E-mail servers would most likely be involved in inter-state communication.

This is no different from a company paying a sysadmin working for another company to plant a virus on a server to forward them trade secrets.

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (5, Funny)

PriceIke (751512) | about 5 years ago | (#27563139)

The real irony here is that the MPAA is paying someone who did NOT create the content for the use of that content (the emails and the information therein), which to anyone with common sense is plainly a crime. I am quite confident Anderson will distribute his earnings to the content creators in a manner consistent with that in which the MPAA distributes their earnings to their artists.

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (3, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 years ago | (#27563939)

I'm pretty sure that there are laws against industrial espionage. "Spying" is a sort of general, while industrial espionage is more specific. Describing the above offense as "spying" is fairly accurate.

http://nsi.org/Library/Legis/bill1556.html [nsi.org]

The person who committed the crime is obviously liable. The people who payed him for the information are only slightly less obviously liable.

And, oh yeah. There are a myriad of conspiracy laws on the books. Everyone involved in stealing the information obviously conspired to perform the act, and to pay for the information.

While the espionage charges are pretty serious, it must be pointed out that the conspiracy is FAR MORE serious. Ask any judge, lawyer, legal advisor, or even a cop.

An INTELLIGENT prosecutor can put some people into prison over this, with some pretty serious sentencing time.

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 5 years ago | (#27566167)

The person who committed the crime is obviously liable. The people who payed him for the information are only slightly less obviously liable.
And, oh yeah. There are a myriad of conspiracy laws on the books. Everyone involved in stealing the information obviously conspired to perform the act, and to pay for the information.

Yes.. that's exactly what it sounds like here, a criminal conspiracy... the problem here is this whole thing is being taken as a civil act isn't it?

The civil proceedings are too easy for the MPAA to manipulate, and they're inappropriate, this shouldn't be civil.

The complaint is criminal, and the charges against the MPAA and all responsible should be criminal. The MPAA should be prosecuted under RICO

And its full powers should be levied against the MPAA as soon as possible, just like they'd do if the MPAA was a small business accused of this. Authorities have the power to freeze all assets during pending prosecution, and seize their possibly ill-gotten gains.

The just and right thing in this case would be for law enforcement to exercise their full powers and prosecute to the full extent of the law.

(Yes, I'm saying they should freeze all MPAA organization assets, for fear they'll start hiding them overseas and utilize them to continue even more serious criminal activities, in the mean time before their case is decided.)

No, you see, it's only illegal when YOU do it (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | about 5 years ago | (#27562927)

I guess this fellow who intercepted the emails was some sort of Internet vigilante? He was hacking for the MPAA, which is apparently a quasi-government organization at this point. Stealing tangible mail is still a felony, however.

How is that even possible? (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | about 5 years ago | (#27562979)

So, let me get this straight. It's not illegal to break your employer's confidence and send a full dump of sensitive emails automatically to your private email account where you sell them to an interested third party?

Re:How is that even possible? (4, Funny)

Decameron81 (628548) | about 5 years ago | (#27563079)

So, let me get this straight. It's not illegal to break your employer's confidence and send a full dump of sensitive emails automatically to your private email account where you sell them to an interested third party?

That's on of the advantages of the new Geniune Advantage Privacy Act.

Re:How is that even possible? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27563099)

For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing-you who dread knowledge-I am the man who will now tell you.' The chief engineer was the only one able to move; he ran to a television set and struggled frantically with its dials. But the screen remained empty; the speaker had not chosen to be seen. Only his voice filled the airways of the country-of the world, thought the chief engineer-sounding as if he were speaking here, in this room, not to a group, but to one man; it was not the tone of addressing a meeting, but the tone of addressing a mind.

"You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man's sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.

"You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you have wished it, and I-I am the man who has granted you your wish.

"Your ideal had an implacable enemy, which your code of morality was designed to destroy. I have withdrawn that enemy. I have taken it out of your way and out of your reach. I have removed the source of all those evils you were sacrificing one by one. I have ended your battle. I have stopped your motor. I have deprived your world of man's mind.

"Men do not live by the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those who do. The mind is impotent, you say? I have withdrawn those whose mind isn't. There are values higher than the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those for whom there aren't.

"While you were dragging to your sacrificial altars the men of justice, of independence, of reason, of wealth, of self-esteem-I beat you to it, I reached them first. I told them the nature of the game you were playing and the nature of that moral code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp. I showed them the way to live by another morality-mine. It is mine that they chose to follow.

"All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You don't. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind.

"We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt.

"There is a difference between our strike and all those you've practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality-the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.

"We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.

"Are you now crying: No, this was not what you wanted? A mindless world of ruins was not your goal? You did not want us to leave you? You moral cannibals, I know that you've always known what it was that you wanted. But your game is up, because now we know it, too.

"Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your curses as reward for their martyrdom-while you went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good?-by what standard?

"You wanted to know John Galt's identity. I am the man who has asked that question.

"Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. Yes, you are bearing punishment for your evil. But it is not man who is now on trial and it is not human nature that will take the blame. It is your moral code that's through, this time. Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality-you who have never known any-but to discover it.

"You have heard no concepts of morality but the mystical or the social. You have been taught that morality is a code of behavior imposed on you by whim, the whim of a supernatural power or the whim of society, to serve God's purpose or your neighbor's welfare, to please an authority beyond the grave or else next door-but not to serve your life or pleasure. Your pleasure, you have been taught, is to be found in immorality, your interests would best be served by evil, and any moral code must be designed not for you, but against you, not to further your life, but to drain it.

"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors-between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.

"Both sides agreed that morality demands the surrender of your self-interest and of your mind, that the moral and the practical are opposites, that morality is not the province of reason, but the province of faith and force. Both sides agreed that no rational morality is possible, that there is no right or wrong in reason-that in reason there's no reason to be moral.

"Whatever else they fought about, it was against man's mind that all your moralists have stood united. It was man's mind that all their schemes and systems were intended to despoil and destroy. Now choose to perish or to learn that the anti-mind is the anti-life.

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron-without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.

"But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival-so that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to' think or not to think.'

"A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. 'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which one gains and keeps it. 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

"There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence-and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and-self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it does; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

"A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

"An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.

"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him t9 perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer-and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.

"A living entity that regarded its means of survival as evil, would not survive. A plant that struggled to mangle its roots, a bird that fought to break its wings would not remain for long in the existence they affronted. But the history of man has been a struggle to deny and to destroy his mind.

"Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice-and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man-by choice; he has to hold his life as a value-by choice: he has to learn to sustain it-by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues-by choice.

"A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.

"Whoever you are, you who are hearing me now, I am speaking to whatever living remnant is left uncorrupted within you, to the remnant of the human, to your mind, and I say: There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value.

"All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.

"Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being-not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement-not survival at any price, since there's only one price that pays for man's survival: reason.

"Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man-for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life.

"Since life requires a specific course of action, any other course will destroy it. A being who does not hold his own life as the motive and goal of his actions, is acting on the motive and standard of death. Such a being is a metaphysical monstrosity, struggling to oppose, negate and contradict the fact of his own existence, running blindly amuck on a trail of destruction, capable of nothing but pain.

"Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness-to value the failure of your values-is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man-every man-is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.

"But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

"Sweep aside those parasites of subsidized classrooms, who live on the profits of the mind of others and proclaim that man needs no morality, no values, no code of behavior. They, who pose as scientists and claim that man is only an animal, do not grant him inclusion in the law of existence they have granted to the lowest of insects. They recognize that every living species has a way of survival demanded by its nature, they do not claim that a fish can live out of water or that a dog can live without its sense of smell-but man, they claim, the most complex of beings, man can survive in any way whatever, man has no identity, no nature, and there's no practical reason why he cannot live with his means of survival destroyed, with his mind throttled and placed at the disposal of any orders they might care to issue.

"Sweep aside those hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity and preach that the highest virtue man can practice is to hold his own life as of no value. Do they tell you that the purpose of morality is to curb man's instinct of self-preservation? It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live.

"No, you do not have to live; it is your basic act of choice; but if you choose to live,. you must live as a man-by the work and the judgment of your mind.

"No, you do not have to live as a man; it is an act of moral choice. But you cannot live as anything else-and the alternative is that state of living death which you now see within you and around you, the state of a thing unfit for existence, no longer human and less than animal, a thing that knows nothing but pain and drags itself through its span of years in the agony of unthinking self-destruction.

"No, you do not have to think; it is an act of moral choice. But someone had to think to keep you alive; if you choose to default, you default on existence and you pass the deficit to some moral man, expecting him to sacrifice his good for the sake of letting you survive by your evil.

"No, you do not have to be a man; but today those who are, are not there any longer. I have removed your means of survival-your victims.

"If you wish to know how I have done it and what I told them to make them quit, you are hearing it now. I told them, in essence, the statement I am making tonight. They were men who had lived by my code, but had not known how great a virtue it represented. I made them see it. I brought them, not a re-evaluation, but only an identification of their values.

"We, the men of the mind, are now on strike against you in the name of a single axiom, which is the root of our moral code, just as the root of yours is the wish to escape it: the axiom that existence exists.

"Existence exists-and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

"If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

"Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two-existence and consciousness-are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.

"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was-no matter what his errors-the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

"Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

"Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders' attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.

"Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his only means to gain it. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind.

"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

"Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason. Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, man's only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth.

"The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask: Whose reason? The answer is: Yours. No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it. It is only with your own knowledge that you can deal. It is only your own knowledge that you can claim to possess or ask others to consider. Your mind is your only judge of truth-and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is the court of final appeal. Nothing but a man's mind can perform that complex, delicate, crucial process of identification which is thinking. Nothing can direct the process but his own judgment. Nothing can direct his judgment but his moral integrity.

"You who speak of a 'moral instinct' as if it were some separate endowment opposed to reason-man's reason is his moral faculty. A process of reason is a process of constant choice in answer to the question: True or False?-Right or Wrong? Is a seed to be planted in soil in order to grow-right or wrong? Is a man's wound to be disinfected in order to save his life-right or wrong? Does the nature of atmospheric electricity permit it to be converted into kinetic power-right or wrong? It is the answers to such questions that gave you everything you have-and the answers came from a man's mind, a mind of intransigent devotion to that which is right.

"A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest-but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.

"That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.

"Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to think-not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment-on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict 'It is.' Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say 'It is,' you are refusing to say 'I am.' By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: 'Who am I to know?'-he is declaring: 'Who am I to live?'

"This, in every hour and every issue, is your basic moral choice: thinking or non-thinking, existence or non-existence, A or non-A, entity or zero.

"To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise directing his actions is death.

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island-it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today-and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists-and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason-Purpose-Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge-Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve-Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.

"Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking-that the mind is one's only judge of values and one's only guide of action-that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise-that a concession to the irrational invalidates one's consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality-that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind-that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one's consciousness.

"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it-that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life-that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.

"Integrity is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake your consciousness, just as honesty is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake existence-that man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness, and that he may permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions-that, like a judge impervious to public opinion, he may not sacrifice his convictions to the wishes of others, be it the whole of mankind shouting pleas or threats against him-that courage and confidence are practical necessities, that courage is the practical form of being true to existence, of being true to one's own consciousness.

"Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud-that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee-that you do not care to live as a dependent, least of all a dependent on the stupidity of others, or as a fool whose source of values is the fools he succeeds in fooling-that honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others.

"Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification-that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a totter above a hero-that your moral appraisal is the coin paying men for their virtues or vices, and this payment demands of you as scrupulous an honor as you bring to financial transactions-that to withhold your contempt from men's vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement-that to place any other concern higher than justice is to devaluate your moral currency and defraud the good in favor of the evil, since only the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit-and that the bottom of the pit at the end of that road, the act of moral bankruptcy, is to punish men for their virtues and reward them for their vices, that that is the collapse to full depravity, the Black Mass of the worship of death, the dedication of your consciousness to the destruction of existence.

"Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live-that productive work is the process by which man's consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values-that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others- that your work is yours to choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human-that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear-corroded ape on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires less than your mind's full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion: decay-that your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live-that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of your road-that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up-that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction.

"Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man's values, it has to be earned-that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character-that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind-that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining-that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul-that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice-that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself-and that the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul's shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable value which is your consciousness and the incomparable glory which is your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others.

"Are you beginning to see who is John Galt? I am the man who has earned the thing you did not fight for, the thing you have renounced, betrayed, corrupted, yet were unable fully to destroy and are now hiding as your guilty secret, spending your life in apologies to every professional cannibal, lest it be discovered that somewhere within you, you still long to say what I am now saying to the hearing of the whole of mankind: I am proud of my own value and of the fact that I wish to live.

"This wish-which you share, yet submerge as an evil-is the only remnant of the good within you, but it is a wish one must learn to deserve. His own happiness is man's only moral purpose, but only his own virtue can achieve it. Virtue is not an end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil. Life is the reward of virtue-and happiness is the goal and the reward of life.

"Just as your body has two fundamental sensations, pleasure and pain, as signs of its welfare or injury, as a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death, so your consciousness has two fundamental emotions, joy and suffering, in answer to the same alternative. Your emotions are estimates of that which furthers your life or threatens it, lightning calculators giving you a sum of your profit or loss. You have no choice about your capacity to feel that something is good for you or evil, but what you will consider good or evil, what will give you joy or pain, what you will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on your standard of value. Emotions are inherent in your nature, but their content is dictated by your mind. Your emotional capacity is an empty motor, and your values are the fuel with which your mind fills it. If you choose a mix of contradictions, it will clog your motor, corrode your transmission and wreck you on your first attempt to move with a machine which you, the driver, have corrupted.

"If you hold the irrational as your standard of value and the impossible as your concept of the good, if you long for rewards you have not earned, for a fortune, or a love you don't deserve, for a loophole in the law of causality, for an A that becomes non-A at your whim, if you desire the opposite of existence-you will reach it. Do not cry, when you reach it, that life is frustration and that happiness is impossible to man; check your fuel: it brought you where you wanted to go.

"Happiness is not to be achieved at the command of emotional whims. Happiness is not the satisfaction of whatever irrational wishes you might blindly attempt to indulge. Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy-a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind's fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.

"Just as I support my life, neither by robbery nor alms, but by my own effort, so I do not seek to derive my happiness from the injury or the favor of others, but earn it by my own achievement. Just as I do not consider the pleasure of others as the goal of my life, so I do not consider my pleasure as the goal of the lives of others. Just as there are no contradictions in my values and no conflicts among my desires-so there are no victims and no conflicts of interest among rational men, men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibal's lust, men who neither make sacrifice nor accept them.

"The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit-his love, his friendship, his esteem-except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread-a man of justice.

"Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None-except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and their demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don't, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs. I have nothing to gain from fools or cowards; I have no benefits to seek from human vices: from stupidity, dishonesty or fear. The only value men can offer me is the work of their mind. When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate-do you hear me? no man may start-the use of physical force against others.

"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force-him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man's capacity to live.

"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason-as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no 'right' to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

"To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument-is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment: you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life-and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

"Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: 'Your money or your life,' or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: 'Your children's education or your life,' the meaning of that ultimatum is: 'Your mind or your life'-and neither is possible to man without the other.

"If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind. That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer's wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him-by force.

"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil.

"In the name of all the producers who had kept you alive and received your death ultimatums in payment, I now answer you with a single ultimatum of our own: Our work or your guns. You can choose either; you can't have both. We do not initiate the use of force against others or submit to force at their hands. If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it Will be on our moral terms. Our terms and our motive power are the antithesis of yours. You have been using fear as your weapon and have been bringing death to man as his punishment for rejecting your morality. We offer him life as his reward for accepting ours.

"You who are worshippers of the zero-you have never discovered that achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death. Joy is not 'the absence of pain,' intelligence is not 'the absence of stupidity,' light is not 'the absence of darkness,' an entity is not 'the absence of a nonentity.' Building is not done by abstaining from demolition; centuries of sitting and waiting in such abstinence will not raise one single girder for you to abstain from demolishing-and now you can no longer say to me, the builder: 'Produce, and feed us in exchange for our not destroying your production.' I am answering in the name of all your victims: Perish with and in your own void. Existence is not a negation of negatives. Evil, not value, is an absence and a negation, evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us. Perish, because we have learned that a zero cannot hold a mortgage over life.

"You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.

"You, who have lost the concept of the difference, you who claim that fear and joy are incentives of equal power-and secretly add that fear is the more 'practical'-you do not wish to live, and only fear of death still holds you to the existence you have damned. You dart in panic through the trap of your days, looking for the exit you have closed, running from a pursuer you dare not name to a terror you dare not acknowledge, and the greater your terror the greater your dread of the only act that could save you: thinking. The purpose of your struggle is not to know, not to grasp or name or hear the thing. I shall now state to your hearing: that yours is the Morality of Death.

"Death is the standard of your values, death is your chosen goal, and you have to keep running, since there is no escape from the pursuer who is out to destroy you or from the knowledge that that pursuer is yourself. Stop running, for once-there is no place to run-stand naked, as you dread to stand, but as I see you, and take a look at what you dared to call a moral code.

"Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

"It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him-it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.

"The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

"A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

"Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a 'tendency' to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

"What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge-he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil-he became a mortal being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor-he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire-he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness; joy-all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was-that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love-he was not man.

"Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

"They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain-and they point at the torture rack to which they've tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body.

"They have cut man in two, setting one half against the other. They have taught him that his body and his consciousness are two enemies engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures, contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to injure the other, that his soul belongs to a supernatural realm, but his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth-and that the good is to defeat his body, to undermine it by years of patient struggle, digging his way to that gorgeous jail-break which leads into the freedom of the grave.

"They have taught man that he is a hopeless misfit made of two elements, both symbols of death. A body without a soul is a corpse, a soul without a body is a ghost-yet such is their image of man's nature: the battleground of a struggle between a corpse and a ghost, a corpse endowed with some evil volition of its own and a ghost endowed with the knowledge that everything known to man is nonexistent, that only the unknowable exists.

"Do you observe what human faculty that' doctrine was designed to ignore? It was man's mind that had to be negated in order to make him fall apart. Once he surrendered reason, he was left at the mercy of two monsters whom he could not fathom or control: of a body moved by unaccountable instincts and of a soul moved by mystic revelations-he was left as the passively ravaged victim of a battle between a robot and a dictaphone.

"And as he now crawls through the wreckage, groping blindly for a way to live, your teachers offer him the help of a morality that proclaims that he'll find no solution and must seek no fulfillment on earth. Real existence, they tell him, is that which he cannot perceive, true consciousness is the faculty of perceiving the non-existent-and if he is unable to understand it, that is the proof that his existence is evil and his consciousness impotent.

"As products of the split between man's soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelation, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter-the enslavement of man's body, in spirit-the destruction of his mind.

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive-a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society-a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man's mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man's standard of value say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure 0f God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man's standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man's right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man's life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.

"Selfishness-say both-is man's evil. Man's good-say both-is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man's good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice-cry both-is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man's reach.

"Whoever is now within reach of my voice, whoever is man the victim, not man the killer, I am speaking at the deathbed of your mind, at the brink of that darkness in which you're drowning, and if there still remains within you the power to struggle to hold on to those fading sparks which had been yourself-use it now. The word that has destroyed you is 'sacrifice.' Use the last of your strength to understand its meaning. You're still alive. You have a chance.

"'Sacrifice' does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. 'Sacrifice' does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. 'Sacrifice' is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don't.

"If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and gave it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor's child and let your own die, it is.

"If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

"If you renounce all personal desire and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate-that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.

"A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward-if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.

"You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man-and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.

"If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you-you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body, It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.

"Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.

"If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a 'sacrifice': that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who's willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.

"Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice-no values, no standards, no judgment-those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil.

"The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral-a morality that declares its own bankruptcy by confessing that it can't impart to men any personal stake in virtues or value, and that their souls are sewers of depravity, which they must be taught to sacrifice. By his own confession, it is impotent to teach men to be good and can only subject them to constant punishment.

"Are you thinking, in some foggy stupor, that it's only material values that your morality requires you to sacrifice? And what do you think are material values? Matter has no value except as a means for the satisfaction of human desires. Matter is only a tool of human values. To what service are you asked to give the material tools your virtue has produced? To the service of that which you regard as evil: to a principle you do not share, to a person you do not respect, to the achievement of a purpose opposed to your own-else your gift is not a sacrifice.

"Your morality tells you to renounce the material world and to divorce your values from matter. A man whose values are given no expression in material form, whose existence is unrelated to his ideals, whose actions contradict his convictions, is a cheap little hypocrite-yet that is the man who obeys your morality and divorces his values from matter. The man who loves one woman, but sleeps with another-the man who admires the talent of a worker, but hires another-the man who considers one cause to be just, but donates his money to the support of another-the man who holds high standards of craftsmanship, but devotes his effort to the production of trash-these are the men who have renounced matter, the men who believe that the values of their spirit cannot be brought into material reality.

"Do you say it is the spirit that such men have renounced? Yes, of course. You cannot have one without the other. You are an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness. Renounce your consciousness and you become a brute. Renounce your body and you become a fake. Renounce the material world and you surrender it to evil.

"And that is precisely the goal of your morality, the duty that your code demands of you. Give to that which you do not enjoy, serve that which you do not admire, submit to that which you consider evil-surrender the world to the values of others, deny, reject, renounce your self. Your self is your mind; renounce it and you become a chunk of meat ready for any cannibal to swallow.

"It is your mind that they want you to surrender-all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or of your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: 'It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others'-end up by saying: 'It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others.

"This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth. You are asked to sacrifice your intellectual integrity, your logic, your reason, your standard of truth-in favor of becoming a prostitute whose standard is the greatest good for the greatest number.

"If you search your code for guidance, for an answer to the question: 'What is the good?'-the only answer you will find is 'The good of others.' The good is whatever others wish, whatever you feel they feel they wish, or whatever you feel they ought to feel. 'The good of others' is a magic formula that transforms anything into gold, a formula to be recited as a guarantee of moral glory and as a fumigator for any action, even the slaughter of a continent. Your standard of virtue is not an object, not an act, not a principle, but an intention. You need no proof, no reasons, no success, you need not achieve in fact the good of others-all you need to know is that your motive was the good of others, not your own. Your only definition of the good is a negation: the good is the 'non-good for me.'

"Your code-which boasts that it upholds eternal, absolute, objective moral values and scorns the conditional, the relative and the subjective-your code hands out, as its version of the absolute, the following rule of moral conduct: If you wish it, it's evil; if others wish it, it's good; if the motive of your action is your welfare, don't do it; if the motive is the welfare of others, then anything goes.

"As this double-jointed, double-standard morality splits you in half, so it splits mankind into two enemy camps: one is you, the other is all the rest of humanity. You are the only outcast who has no right to wish to live. You are the only servant, the rest are the masters, you are the only giver, the rest are the takers, you are the eternal debtor, the rest are the creditors never to be paid off. You must not question their right to your sacrifice, or the nature of their wishes and their needs: their right is conferred upon them by a negative, by the fact that they are 'non-you.'

"For those of you who might ask questions, your code provides a consolation prize and booby-trap: it is for your own happiness, it says, that you must serve the happiness of others, the only way to achieve your joy is to give it up to others, the only way to

I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (3, Interesting)

Goliath (101288) | about 5 years ago | (#27563165)

People who endlessly quote the Bible in every situation or people who ultra-endlessly quote the ultra-endless Ayn Rand in every situation.

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | about 5 years ago | (#27563293)

Let's put them in a room locked from the outside and solve this puzzle once and for all.

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27563329)

Or those who find the Bible offensive in any context and feel the need to bash those who try to live by it? Feeling like they are being witty and clever? Or those who *say* they are tolerant of others and are not really just because they feel like something is 'stupid'?

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27563437)

The english "tolerate" is derived from the latin "tolero" which is to "bear, endure, or suffer". It is not a synonym for "respect". Seriously.

There is absolutely nothing about tolerance that requires you to think that somebody's beliefs, whatever they are, are not stupid. Nor is there anything that prevents you from noting the fact.

This has been your angry that-word-does-not-mean-what-you-think-it-means rant for the day. Thank you.

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27563565)

Which is probably where the figure of speech "Doesn't suffer fools lightly..." comes from...

Heh... Seems that you don't suffer 'em lightly either, do you? :-D

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27564157)

No, that figure of speech comes from Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, and the word in question that time is not the Latin tolero but the Greek "aneko-", which is to carry or lift up. Interestingly, that's also the original definition for suffer -and- tolerate, which brings this discussion full circle and returns us to the MPAA who are a bunch of greedy bastards.

(Also, forgive me for ugly transliteration, but that will be necessary until /. joins the 21st century and supports Unicode.)

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27564019)

I can't be the only atheist who thinks the Bible is still a reasonable book with plenty of good lessons and nice quotes. Just because you don't look to it theistically doesn't mean you should ignore/bash/insult it.

I've quoted Plato's Republic and Teddy Roosevelt in the last few days and I don't hold either of them as a source of religion...

If anyone really cares... Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Erdas 2 are great quotable Biblical books, even in a completely secular environment.

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (1)

KevinKnSC (744603) | about 5 years ago | (#27564027)

Had he used the Latin word, you'd have a point. The English word does, in fact, overlap in meaning with respect. Consult any decent dictionary for proof.

Further, an English word being derived from a word in no way implies that the English word carries the exact same set of meanings that the original did. Compare English "martyr" and Greek "martus", "passion" and Latin "passus", etc.

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27565561)

KevinKnSC (744603) pointed it out, but to make it clearer, "sinister" means "left" in latin...

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (1)

LunaticTippy (872397) | about 5 years ago | (#27563411)

Exodus 21:35 And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead [ox] also they shall divide.

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27563775)

Let me guess, you hate Ayn Rand's work because it's so popular, her fans are kind of weird and you like to be a rebel? Yawn. You will die and be forgotten about in a few years and her work will live longer than your grandkids (if you ever manage to get laid).

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (1)

Tycho (11893) | about 5 years ago | (#27564867)

So will Mein Kampf, but that's not the legacy I would want to leave behind.

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... (1)

Falconhell (1289630) | about 5 years ago | (#27565363)

So popular? I had never heard of it before coming to slashdot-and what I have heard is childish libertarian drivel

Re:How is that even possible? (1)

mellon (7048) | about 5 years ago | (#27563211)

Um, quoting extensively from Atlas Shrugged seems like another example of copyright infringement. I guess the law only applies to people you don't like?

Re:How is that even possible? (5, Informative)

flaming error (1041742) | about 5 years ago | (#27563185)

It would seem that "legality" is proportional to the cost of your legal counsel, and inversely proportional to the virtue of your cause.

Re:How is that even possible? (3, Insightful)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 5 years ago | (#27566057)

I guess it would seem that way to people who frequently (if not exclusively) read sites like Slashdot who report on these cases in such a biased light. The problem you're facing is that, as far as the courts are concerned, intellectual property infringement is a serious developing problem, and sympathy is currently firmly with the copyright holder. They worked to build their empire, and aside from technically legal payola, they haven't really abused it. On the other hand, there are millions of people leeching from them, every day abusing them. It's no wonder the courts sided (initially) with them.

I know from experience that the concept of someone rich having the moral high ground over the common man is a difficult concept to grasp, and it's becoming increasingly difficult as the MPAA and RIAA insist on, more out of desperation than anything else, constantly abusing their positions of power in order to cheaply nip the problem in the bud. But, despite their shifty tactics, they are being wronged, and there needs to be a solution. Not just for them, but for their competitors and the entire industries they represent.

If you object to them, but still want to help out, start buying only indie works, and ignore the **AAs. It's not a wrong against them to support their competitors, and in fact, it's healthy competition. Who knows, we may see kinder, more gentle **AAs? It is, however, wrong to take a slice of their intellectual properties' value for yourself without paying for it first, and this will only make the courts side more with them over you. Who knows, we may see the **AA's every whim realised in legislature?

Re:How is that even possible? (4, Informative)

StikyPad (445176) | about 5 years ago | (#27563347)

It *is* illegal, but if those emails also document an illegal (or legally actionable) activity, then they can be used as evidence.

The rules of evidence [wikipedia.org] are more strict for law enforcement than for private citizens. That's just the way it is.

In my nonbinding opinion, I think the case against TorrentSpy should stand, AND the responsible parties should be prosecuted for gaining access to a computer system without authorization. To my knowledge, this is fully allowable within the bounds of the law, and would rightfully discourage the RIAA (or anyone else) from using such methods in the future.

Re:How is that even possible? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 years ago | (#27563379)

The rules of evidence are more strict for law enforcement than for private citizens. That's just the way it is.

ITYM "That's the way it was [freep.com]. HTH, HAND.

Re:How is that even possible? (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 5 years ago | (#27564279)

In my nonbinding opinion, I think the case against TorrentSpy should stand, AND the responsible parties should be prosecuted for gaining access to a computer system without authorization. To my knowledge, this is fully allowable within the bounds of the law, and would rightfully discourage the RIAA (or anyone else) from using such methods in the future.

It would only discourage the RIAA if the penalties outweigh the gains, probably by a significant margin.
Otherwise, like many other companies do when the fine is less than the [gain], they'll just factor in the penalties as the cost of doing business.

Re:How is that even possible? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#27564391)

It *is* illegal, but if those emails also document an illegal (or legally actionable) activity, then they can be used as evidence.

At least in Germany, illegally obtained data can not be used as evidence. Is this legal in the US?

Re:How is that even possible? (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 5 years ago | (#27565515)

Is this legal in the US?

It depends on the nature or category of the specific case.** Mostly, no...but there are exceptions that increasingly seem to be added to the list lately.

For example:
"The War on Drugs" cases, pretty much anything goes, as it does for 'The War on Terror'. See also 'Media Sentry's' role as a non-licensed investigator in previous RIAA cases.
Any more, it seems to be tied to 'revenue', or '$$amount' in the specific case. The more money/revenue involved, the less civil rights protections enter the picture, and get backed by legislation.

**However intended, this is the way our courts and Laws are evolving.
On one hand, I say that some of this is inevitable as we progress to a World/Global economy/gov't./society, which I think needs to happen in some form for the progress of the Humaan Race as a whole, but that is just my humble opinion...maybe based on reading to much SciFi regarding us expanding to the stars. I don't know for sure, it seems like opening a can of worms that needs opened, but we are not ready to open it yet.

**I can give you specific anecdotes involving the 'drugs' and 'terror' wars here in the USA if you are actually interested. Stuff (documented in the 'drugs' section, but some of the 'terror' section is still classified-I can't provide doc's here, but can discuss the details.*doc's not available yet*-so I don't push this...my word, and all that...)

BTW, to take your question to the logical conclusion, we can hope the courts respond correctly, and most times they do(debatable...), but here, there is no predictable outcome sadly.

More often than not, it is a problem(financial, business loss, time lost, hassle-factor, etc.) getting these cases to a 'high' enough court to set widespread precedent to make a significant impact. :-(

With the introduction of 'IP' as a valid concept for patents, software patents, and the draconian changes to copyright law, the industries based on those concepts are slowly and semi-covertly taking over world economics. Where and how it will all end is unsure, but what is sure is that it will be a painful process unless changes are made at a basic Patent/Copyright level.

The customer loses, the Corp.'s gain, and currently we allow it to progress. The question is:
Do we want this progression, or do we want the public to benefit?

Re:How is that even possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27564399)

It *is* illegal, but if those emails also document an illegal (or legally actionable) activity, then they can be used as evidence.

I basically agree that illegally-gained information should be legally useful.


It should be taken with a grain of salt. These are not emails obtained from TorrentSpy's server. These are -- we think -- emails that may have once been on their server, but then got copied to Anderson's computer supposedly intact and unmodified and then copied to MPAA suppposedly intact an unmodified.

Supposedly. You see, I happen to have an email from StikyPad that says, "I am a bad guy." You might ask how I obtained this proof that you're a bad guy, since if you're ever accused of being bad, you'll open your server to show the courts that there is, in fact, no email from you that says, "I am a bad guy."

So where did I get this email? I stole it from your machine. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

My point is that illegally-gathered information is not merely illegal. It also has totally unknown provenance. We only have MPAA's word (and maybe Anderson's word) that they illegally stole this information. How do we know they didn't make it up? MPAA might actually be totally innocent of espionage, and instead, guilty of perjury. We'll never know.

This is why sometimes it's better to obey the law. If you subpoena the information and then TorrentSpy turns the information over the court, TorrentSpy can't then credibly say that MPAA made up the documents.

Re:How is that even possible? (2, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | about 5 years ago | (#27563509)

So, let me get this straight. It's not illegal to break your employer's confidence and send a full dump of sensitive emails automatically to your private email account where you sell them to an interested third party?

Only if you get caught, and only then if you don't have a good lawyer and lots of money (which you should have plenty of after you sold all that private information). In summary, it's only illegal if the little guy does it.

Re:How is that even possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27564193)

Only if you get caught

Saying that something is illegal only if you get caught is moronic.

Re:How is that even possible? (1)

noidentity (188756) | about 5 years ago | (#27564323)

And taking something out of context is moreso. My response had a sarcastic tone, which that was a part of. Obviously something's legality isn't dependent on detection, otherwise people wouldn't discuss the legality of fictitious actions (unless perhaps they were discussing fictitious detection).

Re:How is that even possible? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | about 5 years ago | (#27566095)

I think you'll find that the "little guy" gets caught far less often than the big guy. In fact, I would say, even with good lawyers and lots of money, the little guy still has less chance of being prosecuted than the big guy. And, I think the little guys who are so inclined, know that and callously exploit that.

But hey, why get in the way of nice little stereotype?

Re:How is that even possible? (1)

cdrguru (88047) | about 5 years ago | (#27563601)

It certainly is not illegal.

It could quite likely be actionable and subject to a civil lawsuit.

Re:How is that even possible? (2, Insightful)

arkhan_jg (618674) | about 5 years ago | (#27564139)

It's theoretically not illegal for the MPAA to use those clandestinely gathered emails as evidence in their own separate case - they can't be sued for obtaining them.

Think whisteblowers; even if the evidence they gather is done by secretly dumping off their boss's email and then passing it to the FBI, the company doesn't get to sue the FBI for privacy violation to have the evidence supressed.

Of course, Torrent Spy/Justin Bunnel could have sued Robert Anderson directly for breach of contract, illegal access of company resources or whatever.

Now, whether the MPAA *should* have the same protection as law enforcement, and whether their illegal private dicks *should* have the same protections as whistleblowers when setting people up is a different set of questions altogether.

Re:How is that even possible? (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | about 5 years ago | (#27565023)

doesn't the FBI use that whistleblower stuff as justification to go and get non-tainted evidence? They don't usually present the very documents provided by a whistleblower in court, do they?

Re:How is that even possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27564487)

If not, I'm about to be RICH, and the US Government is FUCKED.

Disgusted and disallusioned+Jaded (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 5 years ago | (#27565183)

Well, anymore it seems that if you are:
Big Media (TV Networks, MPAA, RIAA),
Haliburton, or Blackwater,
Banking Industry,
[add favorite MegaCorp. here],
or the Prez,
then it's all National Security, ACTA, or WTO...
and are exempt from scrutiny and prosecution.

For those not on the above list, to accept the Corporate New World Order, you need to lube your rectum and get braced to have all 555 feet 5 inches (169.294 m) of the Washington Monument [wikipedia.org] assrape you.

Why yes, observation and experience are making me somewhat cynical...and unfortunately have seen little reason to change my mind significantly.

I don't want to end up looking like goatse! So I try and fight this crap to my limited ability. I suggest you all do the same.

Ah yes, now I recall. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27563039)

Mr. Anderson. How nice to see you again. - Agent Smith

Two separate issues (5, Interesting)

StikyPad (445176) | about 5 years ago | (#27563125)

If you break into someone's house because you think they stole your things, and you find your things there, you can use that as evidence of the theft, especially if you document your break-in. You could sue the person for stealing your things in the first place, and probably win.

At the same time, it was illegal for you to break into the thief's house, and the police may well charge you for B&E. But that doesn't mean we all have to pretend that you didn't find your things there.

Re:Two separate issues (1)

PriceIke (751512) | about 5 years ago | (#27563219)

I'm not a lawyer, but from what Law and Order I watch (which is a lot), I would suggest that professional evidence-gatherers (aka the police) who do not follow strict guidelines on how to go about acquiring evidence routinely have said evidence disregarded by the court, and so, yes, the jury and the attorneys involved very much indeed MUST pretend they didn't find what the police actually found. I think it happens quite a lot, actually.

Re:Two separate issues (2, Informative)

Chabo (880571) | about 5 years ago | (#27563299)

But he was saying that his understanding is that the general public is not held to the same standard; it's not a First Amendment violation, for example, if you were to chain the doors of a church shut for no reason, but it is if the government does it.

In the same way, an illegal search performed by a private citizen is not subject to the exclusionary principle -- the evidence found in such a search is not automatically thrown out.

Like you, much of my knowledge has been gleaned from "Law & Order", though I do research constitutional law on my own.

Re:Two separate issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27563415)

the evidence found in such a search is not automatically thrown out.

But shouldn't it raise serious doubts about their integrity & reliability as a witness if they break the law as part of their job.

That in turn should raise doubts about the evidence itself.

Re:Two separate issues (1)

Chabo (880571) | about 5 years ago | (#27563517)

This isn't "as part of their job", we're speaking of a private citizen here.

If a police officer finds evidence during an illegal search, it is thrown out under the Exclusionary Rule. "They should know better," says the court, and the punishment is that the prosecution has that much harder of a time trying the case.

Garbage cans that are still on the property of their owner (including the curtilage [wikipedia.org]) are considered private under the law; if a police officer searches them, that's considered a Fourth Amendment violation. However, if a private citizen searches those garbage cans of their own accord (not after being asked to do so by a law enforcement officer), and turns over what they find to the police, then a judge may rule that evidence found in that search is admissible. They may rule otherwise, but it doesn't get thrown out automatically.

Re:Two separate issues (1)

mooingyak (720677) | about 5 years ago | (#27563333)

The rules are actually stricter (in a perfect world at least) for the police.

IANAL or a cop, but what I understand as far as evidence goes is:

1. Cops can't break in and search without either a warrant or probable cause.
2. Cops also can't solicit a non-cop to do it for them.
3. If I am in your house (break-in or invited or whatever) and find some evidence of wrongdoing and turn it over to the cops without them suggesting the idea or asking me to do it, they are free to use it.

I'm sure there are subtler nuances to it, but those are the basics from what I understand.

Re:Two separate issues (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 5 years ago | (#27563345)

Uh no, you cannot use that as evidence, there's some interesting 4th amendment issues but you are basically incorrect. Not only that, but you'd be unable to use the evidence of the stolen goods for the same reason. Not that a judge or jury will agree to the same conclusion, but it's very likely the thief would go free before you did, as they would have evidence of your breaking and entering.

Re:Two separate issues (1)

StikyPad (445176) | about 5 years ago | (#27563435)

Private citizens (or entities) are not subject to the 4th Amendment rules of search & seizure. The Constitution affects the powers of government, not the people.

Like I said, you would be violating *criminal law* by breaking into a thief's house; not the rules of evidence. Those are completely separate issues.

Re:Two separate issues (1)

pete-classic (75983) | about 5 years ago | (#27563531)

Do you have any support for your statement?

My not-very-informed opinion is that a private party probably can use evidence illegally obtained in a civil case, but that he is setting himself up for both criminal prosecution and civil liability.

Gee, here's a web page that backs my guess up. "[A] private citizen may use illegally obtained evidence, as long as he or she did not obtain it on orders from law-enforcement personnel. [jrank.org]"


Re:Two separate issues (1)

KiahZero (610862) | about 5 years ago | (#27564941)

The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence gathered by private citizens.

See, for instance, U.S. v. Hood, 748 F.2d 439 (8th Cir. 1984), available at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/748/748.F2d.439.84-1525.html [resource.org]

Re:Two separate issues (1)

pete-classic (75983) | about 5 years ago | (#27566073)

I manifestly don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, but US v. Hood is a criminal case involving evidence turned over to a law enforcement agency. You cite the exclusionary rule, which, as far as I can tell, specifically applies to law enforcement in criminal cases.

Allow me to quote myself, "a private party probably can use evidence illegally obtained in a civil case". The page I cite expressly states in their definition of the exclusionary rule, "a private citizen may use illegally obtained evidence, as long as he or she did not obtain it on orders from law-enforcement personnel", which I quoted in the post you replied to.

What's the disconnect here? Did you read my post? Would you mind re-reading it and explaining how there are fewer than two ways in which your reply is not applicable to what I was saying?


Re:Two separate issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27563455)

Read up on "fruits of the poisoned tree".

Re:Two separate issues (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 years ago | (#27563817)

How can evidence gained during/via the act of a crime be admissible?

It doesn't work for the cops, why should it for us citizens?

There's a reason for the suppression remedy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27564115)

> If you break into someone's house because you think they stole your things, and you find your things there, you can use that as evidence of the theft, especially if you document your break-in. You could sue the person for stealing your things in the first place, and probably win.

Actually, they paid someone to break in. IMHO, that's even worse. The reason we have a suppression remedy is so that the police don't get tempted to abuse their powers to get convictions. If private parties are willing to hire their own "police" I really think that the suppression remedy ought to become available to keep private parties from engaging in the same sort of misconduct.

It's just not right that they should get away with doing something like that so flagrantly.

Re:Two separate issues (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 5 years ago | (#27564337)

If you break into someone's house because you think they stole your things, and you find your things there, you can use that as evidence of the theft, especially if you document your break-in. You could sue the person for stealing your things in the first place, and probably win.

At the same time, it was illegal for you to break into the thief's house, and the police may well charge you for B&E. But that doesn't mean we all have to pretend that you didn't find your things there.

Yeah, just ask O.J. Simpson. I'm sure he understands the law around this exact scenario a lot better now than he used to.

Perhaps not the Wiretap act (4, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | about 5 years ago | (#27563183)

But wouldn't this be covered under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986?

Since when... (3, Insightful)

Quantos (1327889) | about 5 years ago | (#27563191)

TorrentSpy owner Justin Bunnel sued them for spying, but however lost the case due to a ruling that stated it was not illegal since the information was not intercepted under the Wiretap Act.

Since when does something have to be illegal for a lawsuit?

Of course, nobody's posted any Torrentspy's acts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27563209)



Apparently they deleted evidence of the copyright violations that occurred on their site.

Hmm. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27563349)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no actual theft occurred; the original data is still there. If you're going to make a big stink about terminology then please be consistent with it at all times, not just when it suits you.

Interesting (3, Informative)

cdrguru (88047) | about 5 years ago | (#27563735)

Since a great deal of US law is prohibitions on what law enforcement cannot do, there is currently a large amount that is open to private citizens that simply doesn't come up very often. For civil cases there are rules about obtaining evidence, but most of these rules relate to things like stolen work product from attorneys and things like grand theft.

The problem here may quite likely be that the person "stealing" the email did nothing that is directly illegal. It might not have been very nice, but in terms of a law being violated there just might not be anything. Even ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) is going to be a bit of a stretch here.

If the email in question was accessible to the person "stealing" it in his job, then I suspect about all you could try for is some kind of theft of proprietary information, i.e., trade secrets. This would apply to stealing a customer list but email? Might be tough.

Of course, he can be sued for his actions, but trying to categorize the lawsuit on the basis of wiretap? I think you would have to sue under the same grounds as you would for stealing a customer list, that techically there isn't much in the way of law against it.

Remember, I can sue you for spitting on your sidewalk if I want. There is no reason I cannot other than common sense. So suing someone for trading supposedly secret emails can certainly be done. Just don't try to characterize your suit as being on criminal grounds.

Re:Interesting (1)

Renraku (518261) | about 5 years ago | (#27565209)

I guaran-fucking-tee you that if this were some rogue employee stealing the email of a company and selling it off, they'd go to jail for a long long time. I bet there's something behind the scenes keeping the email thief from going to jail and/or being sued.

Immunity clause, maybe?

Some bribery of public officials?

Re:Interesting (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 5 years ago | (#27566191)

It's most likely "contents of the e-mail", or reputation of the plaintiff / defendant.

If you try to claim X big company did something illegal against you, who are authorities inclined to believe?

What about when they talk to X big company, see the e-mails, and they get shown "evidence" of your 'wrongdoing' ?

I would imagine there could be just one embarrasing e-mail to show law enforcement to totally waste complainers credibility (even if the interception was totally illegal)

Anyone remember...? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27563843)

So quickly we've forgotten that "rubico" fellow that accessed Palin's e-mail account. When it happens to our politicians (who should be accountable to the people), it's a federal crime. When it happens to individuals or businesses, whatever floats your boat.

Re:Anyone remember...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27565547)

So quickly we've forgotten that "rubico" fellow that accessed Palin's e-mail account. When it happens to our politicians (who should be accountable to the people), it's a federal crime. When it happens to individuals or businesses, whatever floats your boat.

Please surrender your citizenship. Your country does not expect you to remember anything for longer than a week since it was on national news. Imagine the anarchy if citizens actually held public figures by their promises or treated them like everyone else...

Re:Anyone remember...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27565813)

And even more quickly we forget Mrs. Palin had two yahoo email accounts, one personal (hacked by rubico) and one used to conduct government business (investigated by the FBI and never heard about again). The obfuscation of the two accounts by the media is disturbing, to say the least.

Move along, nothing to see here citizen. /anonymous patriot

law for me but not for thee (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about 5 years ago | (#27563863)

it is incredible that the MPAA thinks that this sort of attitude will help them with their cause.

Re:law for me but not for thee (2, Insightful)

Huntr (951770) | about 5 years ago | (#27564045)

Their (the --AA) cause isn't to win hearts and minds, it's to throw enough shit at the walls that eventually some of it sticks. It's been an effective strategy thus far.

Re:law for me but not for thee (2, Insightful)

aaandre (526056) | about 5 years ago | (#27564931)

Corporate lawyers live in an alternate reality with calculable monetary penalties and rewards for every possible action, no matter how immoral. Their advise is based on the size of the monetary rewards and risk calculation.

Everything else is irrelevant.

The logic is there, just not quite human.

Sorry but this happens everyday. (1)

triceice (1046486) | about 5 years ago | (#27563921)

Corporate email monitoring systems do the same thing. If you have ever been part of a HIPAA security compliant organization then you know this is true.

Re:Sorry but this happens everyday. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27565507)

Yes, but the corporate email monitoring systems do not sell the emails to outsiders.

Industrial Espionage (4, Informative)

ExRex (47177) | about 5 years ago | (#27564017)

Unfortunately, while such activities fall under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 [wikipedia.org], according to our friends at Wikipedia:

"The Act authorizes civil proceedings by the Department of Justice to enjoin violations of the Act, but does not create a private cause of action. Thus, victims or putative victims must work with the U.S. Attorney in order to obtain an injunction."

And we all know how eager the DOJ is to chastise the MPAA.

Re:Industrial Espionage (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | about 5 years ago | (#27564107)

I agree about the doj, however I was under the impression that corporate espionage and stealing trade secrets was a crime. so why wouldn't the doj prosecute a crime? Theft is a crime.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account