Yeah, I'd thought of that too. You're right, it would be cost prohibitive for both side. I do think there'd still be a lot of people swept up in the judgment who didn't opt out. I don't really know though. I'm curious to see if Steele can make this work.
That's because copyright is out of touch with reality.
Is it? Aren't people in fact incentivized to create via copyright, and don't we all enjoy really nice things thanks to copyright? I enjoyed the Super Bowl last night, brought to me via copyright. I'm enjoying some tunes right now on MOG, brought to me via copyright. The joys of copyright are all around us. :)
So were the people they're trying to sue really given the chance to "opt out" of being a defendant?
We're not there yet. No defendants have even been named in the suit, and we're a good ways off from the judge ruling on whether or not to certify the class.
I'm taking a seminar class this semester in complex litigation/class actions. I had a conversation a couple weeks ago with my professor about the possibility of using a defendant class action to go after infringers... And here we've got one. I'm excited to show my prof the complaint to see what he thinks.
I actually don't think this is such a bad idea. I think it's fairly simple to establish the elements of the class under Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy) and 23(b)(3) (questions of law and fact predominate over class). Such a class promotes judicial economy, and it also promotes uniformity of adjudication. The arguments for it are pretty strong, IMO.
And for those who wish to mount their own defense, they can opt out of the class and do that if they wish. I doubt many people would actually do that though, since the cost would be really prohibitive.
He just graduated. I wouldn't exactly suggest he's particularly experienced in these issues. It wasn't a "lie," it was shorthand.
You intentionally misrepresented him. That makes it a lie. Besides, when he graduated law school says nothing of the validity of his arguments. He's providing detailed legal analysis of these seizures. You're writing hit pieces.
Well, for one thing, most of them are pretty busy working to see what can be done to stop this violation of the law, and that seems a bit more important than arguing with a bunch of folks on a comment forum who don't understand the law.
But, if you look around you might see some of them have made it clear they agree:
Those guys are great, I agree. I follow them both, just like you. I'd love to see their written analysis of the situation, no matter which side they may happen to take.
Love or hate is a non issue.
Citizens are responsible for ensuring the government does it's job and represents the population. It is their responsibility to be critical.
Sure, but nitpicking on little things that don't matter takes it a bit far. The bias is overwhelming.
No, civil would be if the person being offended demanded an injunction. The government doesn't have standing to sue on my, or a corporations, behalf, it can prosecute criminal offenses and things like traffic violations (which are still technically considered criminal).
I don't really follow you. These seizures are civil forfeiture proceedings. It says so right in the affidavit and seizure warrant that they are done pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2323(a), the civil forfeiture statute.
I've been systematically attacked for many months on this site for stating what is my honest opinion and my honest understanding of the law. I think I'm providing insight that others are not. In my mind, such contributions should be welcome. But since my message isn't about how great piracy is, I take shit day in and day out. Perhaps my attitude has soured because of the constant abuse I receive from others. Why don't you ask the others why they are so abusive to me?
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re:
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re:
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re:
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
Is it? Aren't people in fact incentivized to create via copyright, and don't we all enjoy really nice things thanks to copyright? I enjoyed the Super Bowl last night, brought to me via copyright. I'm enjoying some tunes right now on MOG, brought to me via copyright. The joys of copyright are all around us. :)
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Could it be this easy?
We're not there yet. No defendants have even been named in the suit, and we're a good ways off from the judge ruling on whether or not to certify the class.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
I actually don't think this is such a bad idea. I think it's fairly simple to establish the elements of the class under Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy) and 23(b)(3) (questions of law and fact predominate over class). Such a class promotes judicial economy, and it also promotes uniformity of adjudication. The arguments for it are pretty strong, IMO.
And for those who wish to mount their own defense, they can opt out of the class and do that if they wish. I doubt many people would actually do that though, since the cost would be really prohibitive.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner. I fully expect the law to change to give rights holders better tools.
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question @ Joe
Now you're getting me all excited! :)
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question @ Joe
You intentionally misrepresented him. That makes it a lie. Besides, when he graduated law school says nothing of the validity of his arguments. He's providing detailed legal analysis of these seizures. You're writing hit pieces.
Well, for one thing, most of them are pretty busy working to see what can be done to stop this violation of the law, and that seems a bit more important than arguing with a bunch of folks on a comment forum who don't understand the law.
But, if you look around you might see some of them have made it clear they agree:
http://twitter.com/#!/ericgoldman/status/33262595016232963
http://twitter.com/#!/copyce nse/status/33271623817629697
Those guys are great, I agree. I follow them both, just like you. I'd love to see their written analysis of the situation, no matter which side they may happen to take.
By the way, Terry Hart has more great analysis today: http://www.copyhype.com/2011/02/super-bowl-seizures/
On the post: Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citizens are responsible for ensuring the government does it's job and represents the population. It is their responsibility to be critical.
Sure, but nitpicking on little things that don't matter takes it a bit far. The bias is overwhelming.
On the post: Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Due diligence?
I don't really follow you. These seizures are civil forfeiture proceedings. It says so right in the affidavit and seizure warrant that they are done pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2323(a), the civil forfeiture statute.
Here's one of the warrants: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf
On the post: Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Public Citizen & EFF Plan To Continue Pursuing Evan Stone Over Questionable Subpoenas
Re: It's about time we saw the judiciary scrutinizing this stuff carefully
On the post: Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google
Re: Re:
Point take, but I feel like it's "Hate the Government Week" or something. I love the government, so I'm probably in the minority around here.
On the post: Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Due diligence?
The infringement on these sites is (purportedly) criminal. The forfeiture proceeding is civil.
On the post: Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Due diligence?
Section 230 wouldn't bar prosecution, but the facts certainly would. My take anyway.
On the post: Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google
Re: Re: Re: Due diligence?
It's in section 230(e)(2):
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re:
Next >>