Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Jun 2019 @ 10:44am
Who said judges cannot be creative.
Good faith exception based on purported intentions taken to the Nth degree with unqualified immunity applied. Judge made law to overcome Constitutional law on whims.
Let us hope this goes to the Supreme Court and that the current court has some integrity.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Jun 2019 @ 8:01am
Seriously though
Wouldn't either move be a 1st Amendment violation? After all, Congress shall make no law is not just prominent, but the first words of the Amendment. Either proposal would be engaging in 'prohibiting the free exercise'. If platforms do it, it is not the government. If the government tells platforms what to do, it is government.
"U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Jun 2019 @ 5:53pm
Do as we say, because we said so.
"There's apparently nothing wrong with destroying a private sector instrument of government accountability in the name of national security."
Shouldn't that be national insecurity? I mean, after all, they are more concerned about what their constituents know about their activities than they are about protecting the ideals created by their constitution.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Jun 2019 @ 6:47pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Opera
In then end, then, it is up to Brave or other forks of Chromium or Chrome (depending on where they started) to determine whether they will follow any of Googles leads. Therefore, it would be reasonable that since Chrome/Chromium blocked NoScript but Brave doesn't that mean in at least in one sense Brave (at least, not sure about the other forks) did not follow Googles lead, at least for that issue.
Therefore, also, future source code commits may or may not be accepted by any browser fork of (where ever or when they started) Chrome or Chromium and it would be unreasonable to assume that future Google commits will be accepted by any of the forks. Given that, wouldn't it be reasonable to judge forked browsers on their own merits rather than what Google is doing in Chrome or Chromium today?
Opera, Edge, and Vivaldi have also been mentioned as forks from Google products, and have been considered as being independent of Google. I think the same consideration should be given to Brave, or any other browser that at least says they are trying to do the right thing. At least until we find out something different. And, unfortunately that finding out something different has been the case all too often.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Jun 2019 @ 5:11pm
Re:
While I agree that management, like fish, stink from the head first, the Chief of Police were not the only dirty hands in this. There were prosecutors and judges who approved search warrants with out significant details, like the occupation of the target, which was well known to the police, but apparently not (at least I hope) the judge.
For that matter, why not ask for the resignation of the DA, the Mayor, the Governor, the Attorney General?
I think going after the cops that made the warrant requests, did the break in, and their immediate supervisors might be better targets. That is not to say that those managers mentioned above should not have some retribution, but they are elected rather than hired, and therefore need a different kind of retribution, a kind that should be made available to their replacements as well.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Jun 2019 @ 4:44pm
Re: Re: Opera
Out of curiosity, you're saying that any fork of Chrome/Chromium will continue to be influenced by Google? Why then does NoScript work in Brave but not Chrome or Chromium, for example? Why is there a 'New Private WIndow with Tor' available in Brave? Why does right click to translate to English not work in Brave?
I will admit that I do not know, but am curious to understand your perspective. Got any relevant references?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Jun 2019 @ 10:02am
Re: Re: Suggestion
That might depend upon how you use Slashdot. I use an RSS reader, and only get four or five moderated comments, many of which I ignore. The stories, at least some of them, can be enlightening, when read at all.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Jun 2019 @ 7:16am
"Still, being a member of the MPAA doesn't require Netflix to join in on these legal efforts at site-blocking."
Thinking about why they might have joined, are there benefits other than a seat at the Oscar's table? I can imagine them getting a membership to aid that purpose, but I wonder about that membership agreement. Does it say that 'members' have to participate in all association activities, even if merely passively?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Jun 2019 @ 7:08am
Suggestion
Brave is a fork of Chrome/Chromium that at least in theory will be a bit less evil. The statement "You are not a product." on their home page looks promising. I read about this on Slashdot last week and am giving it a try. For a start, noscript works on Brave, but not on Chrome/Chromium (one being for Linux and the other for Windows) and all the rest of my extensions are working, such as Ghostery, uMatrix, uBlock origin, AdBlock+, HTTPS Everywhere (which is actually also in Brave's settings), etc.
I have only been using it a week or so, and am not convinced that it will be my goto browser in the future, but with the exception of 'Translate to English' available on a right click, everything has been as expected.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Jun 2019 @ 4:29pm
I swear we thought it would work!
I wonder how many clients that invested in this theory are gonna ask for some significant refunds. I can hear the scrambling now with the middlemen and ad agencies trying to debunk these claims. Of course, the lack of results should be apparent to the ad buyers...that is unless they drank too much Kool-Aid.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Jun 2019 @ 7:20am
Wrong Question
Actually there are two questions that come in a progression. The first would be which of the three remaining telecom companies will be the one (by which I mean the one remaining when the other two have been consumed)?
And that question leads into the other, which company will be the one (by which I mean which company will consume all the other remaining companies in the world (as in all restaurants are Taco Bell))?
I can remember a time when we thought the answer to that second question would be IBM. Shifting sands, I guess. Facebook, Google, some startup that hasn't been conceived of yet (one that wouldn't be subsumed by some threatened giant before they get their feet wet)?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Jun 2019 @ 6:35pm
Statistics tell the story the compiler wants to tell
The statistic I would like to see is how many times each and every law on the books has been enforced since codification (an arrest made), and how many times that arrest was actually prosecuted, and then the win/lose record of those prosecutions. Recidivism of the same offence by the same offender might be nice as well, and as Tim points out, how many went to trial and how many were plea bargained. (I'll leave statistics on the nature and form of the plea bargains for another time). Oh, another good one, how many cases (and which laws) were reversed at the appellate level, and how many years later were they reversed?
I suspect we will find that many laws are never enforced as there was never a need for the law, and that many of those arrested for some offence are never prosecuted, and that the success rate for the prosecution of some of the laws was significantly less than 100% (the reasons for those failures would be yet another interesting study).
Data mining isn't just for your telecom provider, social media addictions, or Google, but can be fun for all.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Jun 2019 @ 4:17pm
Re: Spelling
I attribute the 'break' rather than 'brake' error to the ACLU of Iowa because they wrote their filing on a cell phone with auto-correct turned on. While I don't find that terribly disturbing, I find their lack of proof reading atrocious. One wonders what other errors of omission might occur.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 May 2019 @ 7:36pm
"It should serve as a template for other craft breweries as to how to interact and resolve potential trademark issues between peers."
I see two problems with this statement, but one of them is not that I don't hope that it would work.
The first problem is that brewery A could find a partner in brewery B that would be willing to do such an exchange. Many of the trademark issues discussed here have been about US companies vs US companies, and I have a hard time seeing them willing to give up a potential market, no matter how magnanimous, or potentially lucrative that transaction might be. The whole concept of 'giving up a market' is anathema to typical marketers.
The second problem is the beer itself. I like a fairly wide variety of beers, but insist upon quality in each of them. You and I and those folks over there may think, and taste beers differently, and none of us or them are wrong. People have different tastes and perspectives.
That Heavy Seas thinks that their beer will be a hit in the UK is awesome. But what if they are wrong? That Loose Cannon thinks that their beers will be a hit in the US is also awesome. But what if they are wrong? That they will co-produce a celebration brew is also awesome, but what if nobody likes it? I like some of the Christmas Ales I have tried, but I wouldn't want to drink them all year.
Anheuser-Busch Inbev 48.8% 40.8%
MillerCoors, LLC 29.4% 23.5%
Constellation 5.3% 9.9%
Heineken USA 4.2% 3.5%
Pabst Brewing 2.7% 2.1%
All Other Domestic and Imports 9.6% 20%
Total 100% 100%
(sorry, I cannot make markdown line the columns up, see the linked reference)
Now some of those big brewery numbers include beers that I might drink, but to a large degree I think that those numbers include a lot of folk who buy due to price and quantity, rather than flavor and quality. They would probably argue differently and proclaim me to be snobbish. They might be right. I might be right. Who is right is not important.
My point is that whatever beer is produced needs to satisfy a particular market. If that market is local, great. If that market is more widespread also great. Now how to tell the difference? Before one goes after a nationwide, or worldwide trademark one needs to determine if there is a market for 'this particular beer' (or for that matter whatever commodity) before they close out opportunities for others, who may or may not conflate with your brand. Keep them out of your local market, fine, keep them out of markets you have no hope of competing in, not so fine. I know this doesn't necessarily comply with the way the law is written, I am talking about what makes sense.
And the assumption that your beer is going to be liked everywhere, is well, a bit arrogant. I like IPA's, but not all IPA's. I like Pilsners, but not all Pilsners. I like a bunch of different beer styles, but not all beer styles. I tend not to like Bud, or Miller, or Coors, or Corona (why would one like a beer that requires seasoning, the lime?) or anything Lite, or a bunch of others, but that doesn't mean I won't drink them if there is no other choice. Nor does it mean that anyone else shouldn't.
Then again, we drove more than an hour from Minneapolis to get leinenkugels from Wisconsin because it wasn't available in Minnesota. That was in the late 1970's. Tastes change. Today I wouldn't cross the street for the Leinenkugels we got back then, however I would be interested in trying something new they have produced.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 May 2019 @ 4:50pm
Re:
Then, I ask, where do the Journalist Shield laws come from? I am not saying your wrong, but there is legislation in several states that protect the act of Journalism differently than other acts.
Now I do not know if those legislation's define who a journalist is or isn't, and I agree that any citizen could be defined as a Journalist merely on their conduct, but how do we tell that to the cop on the street who doesn't know nor is required to know the law?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 May 2019 @ 6:49pm
"[c]onspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest of the United States"
I suppose if they tried to create some definitions that described the types of 'activities' that constituted this clause it would sink the bill. On the other hand without any definition they could rely on the old and very tired 'I relied on my training and experience, I know conspiracy when I see it' strawman.
The very least they could do is require specificity when documenting what those specific activities were and how they not only were a part of a conspiracy, but actually threatened the national security.
Oh, and no mention of the 100 mile wide border? Or is this a one step at a time type of thing?
(b) EMERGENCY EXCEPTIONS.— (1) EMERGENCY SITUATIONS GENERALLY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—An investigative or law enforcement officer of a Governmental entity who is designated by the Secretary of Home-land Security for purposes of this paragraph may access the digital contents of electronic equipment belonging to or in possession of a United States person at the border without a warrant described in subsection
(a)(1) if the investigative or law enforcement officer—
(i) reasonably determines that—
(I) an emergency situation exists that involves—
(aa) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person;
(bb) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest of the United States; or
(cc) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime;
(II) the emergency situation described in subclause (I) requires access to the digital contents of the electronic equipment before a warrant described in subsection (a)(1) authorizing such access can, with due diligence, be obtained; and (III) there are grounds upon which a warrant described in subsection (a)(1) could be issued authorizing such access; and
(ii) makes an application in accordance with this section for a warrant described in subsection (a)(1) as soon as practicable, but not later than 7 days after the investigative or law enforcement officer accesses the digital contents under the authority under this subparagraph.
Well, it sure seems to me that in order to make use of those 'emergency' exceptions they would have to have some prior knowledge of the activities of the individual(s) who's equipment they want to search. It doesn't seem like acting 'furtively' in the airport or at the border crossing is going to suffice. Or will it?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 May 2019 @ 3:45pm
Wrong Laws Used
They would have been better off just DMCA'ing the posts. That would have gotten them taken down, and there would have been no backlash for lying. Now, they just might get to pay the defendants legal bills. With a whole lot of luck, the lawyers get sanctioned, or if it is pro se they get one really nasty lecture from the judge.
On the post: Court: Planning To Get A Warrant Is As Good As Actually Having A Warrant When Searching A House
Who said judges cannot be creative.
Good faith exception based on purported intentions taken to the Nth degree with unqualified immunity applied. Judge made law to overcome Constitutional law on whims.
Let us hope this goes to the Supreme Court and that the current court has some integrity.
On the post: Republicans Blame CDA 230 For Letting Platforms Censor Too Much; Democrats Blame CDA 230 For Platforms Not Censoring Enough
Seriously though
Wouldn't either move be a 1st Amendment violation? After all, Congress shall make no law is not just prominent, but the first words of the Amendment. Either proposal would be engaging in 'prohibiting the free exercise'. If platforms do it, it is not the government. If the government tells platforms what to do, it is government.
On the post: Republicans Blame CDA 230 For Letting Platforms Censor Too Much; Democrats Blame CDA 230 For Platforms Not Censoring Enough
They're both wrong
Independents blame CDA 230 for causing Republicans and Democrats.
On the post: Australian Federal Police Raid Even More Journalists Over Leaked Documents
Do as we say, because we said so.
Shouldn't that be national insecurity? I mean, after all, they are more concerned about what their constituents know about their activities than they are about protecting the ideals created by their constitution.
On the post: As Google Ponders Making Ad Blockers Less Useful, Mozilla Ramps Up Tracker Blocking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Opera
In then end, then, it is up to Brave or other forks of Chromium or Chrome (depending on where they started) to determine whether they will follow any of Googles leads. Therefore, it would be reasonable that since Chrome/Chromium blocked NoScript but Brave doesn't that mean in at least in one sense Brave (at least, not sure about the other forks) did not follow Googles lead, at least for that issue.
Therefore, also, future source code commits may or may not be accepted by any browser fork of (where ever or when they started) Chrome or Chromium and it would be unreasonable to assume that future Google commits will be accepted by any of the forks. Given that, wouldn't it be reasonable to judge forked browsers on their own merits rather than what Google is doing in Chrome or Chromium today?
Opera, Edge, and Vivaldi have also been mentioned as forks from Google products, and have been considered as being independent of Google. I think the same consideration should be given to Brave, or any other browser that at least says they are trying to do the right thing. At least until we find out something different. And, unfortunately that finding out something different has been the case all too often.
Let us wait for the evidence.
On the post: Released Warrant Shows SFPD Started Monitoring Journalist's Phone Weeks Before Officers Raided His Home
Re:
While I agree that management, like fish, stink from the head first, the Chief of Police were not the only dirty hands in this. There were prosecutors and judges who approved search warrants with out significant details, like the occupation of the target, which was well known to the police, but apparently not (at least I hope) the judge.
For that matter, why not ask for the resignation of the DA, the Mayor, the Governor, the Attorney General?
I think going after the cops that made the warrant requests, did the break in, and their immediate supervisors might be better targets. That is not to say that those managers mentioned above should not have some retribution, but they are elected rather than hired, and therefore need a different kind of retribution, a kind that should be made available to their replacements as well.
On the post: As Google Ponders Making Ad Blockers Less Useful, Mozilla Ramps Up Tracker Blocking
Re: Re: Opera
Out of curiosity, you're saying that any fork of Chrome/Chromium will continue to be influenced by Google? Why then does NoScript work in Brave but not Chrome or Chromium, for example? Why is there a 'New Private WIndow with Tor' available in Brave? Why does right click to translate to English not work in Brave?
I will admit that I do not know, but am curious to understand your perspective. Got any relevant references?
On the post: As Google Ponders Making Ad Blockers Less Useful, Mozilla Ramps Up Tracker Blocking
Re: Re: Suggestion
That might depend upon how you use Slashdot. I use an RSS reader, and only get four or five moderated comments, many of which I ignore. The stories, at least some of them, can be enlightening, when read at all.
On the post: Netflix, Which Has Previously Touted Its Ability To Compete With Piracy, Joins Australian Antipiracy Efforts
Thinking about why they might have joined, are there benefits other than a seat at the Oscar's table? I can imagine them getting a membership to aid that purpose, but I wonder about that membership agreement. Does it say that 'members' have to participate in all association activities, even if merely passively?
On the post: As Google Ponders Making Ad Blockers Less Useful, Mozilla Ramps Up Tracker Blocking
Suggestion
Brave is a fork of Chrome/Chromium that at least in theory will be a bit less evil. The statement "You are not a product." on their home page looks promising. I read about this on Slashdot last week and am giving it a try. For a start, noscript works on Brave, but not on Chrome/Chromium (one being for Linux and the other for Windows) and all the rest of my extensions are working, such as Ghostery, uMatrix, uBlock origin, AdBlock+, HTTPS Everywhere (which is actually also in Brave's settings), etc.
I have only been using it a week or so, and am not convinced that it will be my goto browser in the future, but with the exception of 'Translate to English' available on a right click, everything has been as expected.
On the post: New Study Shows That All This Ad Targeting Doesn't Work That Well
I swear we thought it would work!
I wonder how many clients that invested in this theory are gonna ask for some significant refunds. I can hear the scrambling now with the middlemen and ad agencies trying to debunk these claims. Of course, the lack of results should be apparent to the ad buyers...that is unless they drank too much Kool-Aid.
On the post: If 'Big Tech' Is a Huge Antitrust Problem, Why Are We Ignoring Telecom?
Wrong Question
Actually there are two questions that come in a progression. The first would be which of the three remaining telecom companies will be the one (by which I mean the one remaining when the other two have been consumed)?
And that question leads into the other, which company will be the one (by which I mean which company will consume all the other remaining companies in the world (as in all restaurants are Taco Bell))?
I can remember a time when we thought the answer to that second question would be IBM. Shifting sands, I guess. Facebook, Google, some startup that hasn't been conceived of yet (one that wouldn't be subsumed by some threatened giant before they get their feet wet)?
On the post: San Francisco DA's Office Whips Up Its Own Sunlight, Releases Data Sets On Arrests And Convictions
Statistics tell the story the compiler wants to tell
The statistic I would like to see is how many times each and every law on the books has been enforced since codification (an arrest made), and how many times that arrest was actually prosecuted, and then the win/lose record of those prosecutions. Recidivism of the same offence by the same offender might be nice as well, and as Tim points out, how many went to trial and how many were plea bargained. (I'll leave statistics on the nature and form of the plea bargains for another time). Oh, another good one, how many cases (and which laws) were reversed at the appellate level, and how many years later were they reversed?
I suspect we will find that many laws are never enforced as there was never a need for the law, and that many of those arrested for some offence are never prosecuted, and that the success rate for the prosecution of some of the laws was significantly less than 100% (the reasons for those failures would be yet another interesting study).
Data mining isn't just for your telecom provider, social media addictions, or Google, but can be fun for all.
On the post: Sheriff's Deputy Sued After Arresting Man For Criticizing Him On Facebook
Re: Spelling
I attribute the 'break' rather than 'brake' error to the ACLU of Iowa because they wrote their filing on a cell phone with auto-correct turned on. While I don't find that terribly disturbing, I find their lack of proof reading atrocious. One wonders what other errors of omission might occur.
On the post: Sheriff's Deputy Sued After Arresting Man For Criticizing Him On Facebook
Re:
I agree. So soon as I find some.
On the post: UK, American Breweries Show How The Craft Beer Industry Should Be Handling Trademark Issues
I see two problems with this statement, but one of them is not that I don't hope that it would work.
The first problem is that brewery A could find a partner in brewery B that would be willing to do such an exchange. Many of the trademark issues discussed here have been about US companies vs US companies, and I have a hard time seeing them willing to give up a potential market, no matter how magnanimous, or potentially lucrative that transaction might be. The whole concept of 'giving up a market' is anathema to typical marketers.
The second problem is the beer itself. I like a fairly wide variety of beers, but insist upon quality in each of them. You and I and those folks over there may think, and taste beers differently, and none of us or them are wrong. People have different tastes and perspectives.
That Heavy Seas thinks that their beer will be a hit in the UK is awesome. But what if they are wrong? That Loose Cannon thinks that their beers will be a hit in the US is also awesome. But what if they are wrong? That they will co-produce a celebration brew is also awesome, but what if nobody likes it? I like some of the Christmas Ales I have tried, but I wouldn't want to drink them all year.
(sorry, I cannot make markdown line the columns up, see the linked reference)
Now some of those big brewery numbers include beers that I might drink, but to a large degree I think that those numbers include a lot of folk who buy due to price and quantity, rather than flavor and quality. They would probably argue differently and proclaim me to be snobbish. They might be right. I might be right. Who is right is not important.
My point is that whatever beer is produced needs to satisfy a particular market. If that market is local, great. If that market is more widespread also great. Now how to tell the difference? Before one goes after a nationwide, or worldwide trademark one needs to determine if there is a market for 'this particular beer' (or for that matter whatever commodity) before they close out opportunities for others, who may or may not conflate with your brand. Keep them out of your local market, fine, keep them out of markets you have no hope of competing in, not so fine. I know this doesn't necessarily comply with the way the law is written, I am talking about what makes sense.
And the assumption that your beer is going to be liked everywhere, is well, a bit arrogant. I like IPA's, but not all IPA's. I like Pilsners, but not all Pilsners. I like a bunch of different beer styles, but not all beer styles. I tend not to like Bud, or Miller, or Coors, or Corona (why would one like a beer that requires seasoning, the lime?) or anything Lite, or a bunch of others, but that doesn't mean I won't drink them if there is no other choice. Nor does it mean that anyone else shouldn't.
Then again, we drove more than an hour from Minneapolis to get leinenkugels from Wisconsin because it wasn't available in Minnesota. That was in the late 1970's. Tastes change. Today I wouldn't cross the street for the Leinenkugels we got back then, however I would be interested in trying something new they have produced.
On the post: San Francisco Police Union Steps Up To Criticize Police Chief Over His Handling Of The Leak Investigation
Re:
Then, I ask, where do the Journalist Shield laws come from? I am not saying your wrong, but there is legislation in several states that protect the act of Journalism differently than other acts.
Now I do not know if those legislation's define who a journalist is or isn't, and I agree that any citizen could be defined as a Journalist merely on their conduct, but how do we tell that to the cop on the street who doesn't know nor is required to know the law?
On the post: DOJ Floats A Truly Stupid Idea To Salvage The Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
Re:
No problem as T-Mobile/Sprint was gonna abandon those anyway so they could force people to 5G.
/s
On the post: Bill Introduced To Create A Warrant Requirement For Border Device Searches
I suppose if they tried to create some definitions that described the types of 'activities' that constituted this clause it would sink the bill. On the other hand without any definition they could rely on the old and very tired 'I relied on my training and experience, I know conspiracy when I see it' strawman.
The very least they could do is require specificity when documenting what those specific activities were and how they not only were a part of a conspiracy, but actually threatened the national security.
Oh, and no mention of the 100 mile wide border? Or is this a one step at a time type of thing?
(b) EMERGENCY EXCEPTIONS.— (1) EMERGENCY SITUATIONS GENERALLY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—An investigative or law enforcement officer of a Governmental entity who is designated by the Secretary of Home-land Security for purposes of this paragraph may access the digital contents of electronic equipment belonging to or in possession of a United States person at the border without a warrant described in subsection
(a)(1) if the investigative or law enforcement officer—
(i) reasonably determines that—
(I) an emergency situation exists that involves—
(aa) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person;
(bb) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest of the United States; or
(cc) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime;
(II) the emergency situation described in subclause (I) requires access to the digital contents of the electronic equipment before a warrant described in subsection (a)(1) authorizing such access can, with due diligence, be obtained; and (III) there are grounds upon which a warrant described in subsection (a)(1) could be issued authorizing such access; and
(ii) makes an application in accordance with this section for a warrant described in subsection (a)(1) as soon as practicable, but not later than 7 days after the investigative or law enforcement officer accesses the digital contents under the authority under this subparagraph.
Well, it sure seems to me that in order to make use of those 'emergency' exceptions they would have to have some prior knowledge of the activities of the individual(s) who's equipment they want to search. It doesn't seem like acting 'furtively' in the airport or at the border crossing is going to suffice. Or will it?
On the post: Libel Lawsuit Has A Bunch Of Crazy Ideas About How Section 230 Immunity Works
Wrong Laws Used
They would have been better off just DMCA'ing the posts. That would have gotten them taken down, and there would have been no backlash for lying. Now, they just might get to pay the defendants legal bills. With a whole lot of luck, the lawyers get sanctioned, or if it is pro se they get one really nasty lecture from the judge.
Next >>