In other words, if your protection scheme is laughable, it's silly to make it infringement to get around it.
This seems illogical and backwards to me. You would give the least protection where it is needed the most. You would only give protection where none was needed.
The problem isn't the argument -- it's the fact that the defendants are not joindered correctly at all. If we're following the conventions to the letter, none of these cases would be against more than one defendant, or a few at the most -- and those that stick together would have severance be their first tactic, as the joinder would be flimsy at best.
How do figure they're misjoined? I thought USCG has done a good job pleading sufficient facts to justify joinder under Rule 20. The judges have agreed.
Maybe USCG can show these porn guys how to plead a case that won't have the bulk of the defendants severed before they get their addresses to use for the settlement offers.
If you look at the Perfect 10 rulings, the court noted that as a search engine, Google was not liable for what it found . . . .
I don't think that's what the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10 said at all, particularly since the court did not rule on the merits. The issue on appeal was a preliminary injunction, so only the likelihood of success on the merits was discussed. In fact, the court reversed the district court's rejection of the possibility that Google could be secondarily liable for infringement of Perfect 10's full-size images. In other words, the Ninth Circuit explicitly ruled that Google could be liable for what it found, i.e., the exact opposite of what you're saying they ruled. You might want to read that case again.
From the opinion:
Accordingly, we hold that a computer system operator can be held contributorily liable if it "has actual knowledge that specific infringing material is available using its system," Napster, 239 F.3d at 1022, and can "take simple measures to prevent further damage" to copyrighted works, Netcom, 907 F. Supp. at 1375, yet continues to provide access to infringing works. There is no dispute that Google substantially assists websites to distribute their infringing copies to a worldwide market and assists a worldwide audience of users to access infringing materials.
***
We cannot discount the effect of such a service on copyright owners, even though Google's assistance is available to all websites, not just infringing ones. Applying our test, Google could be held contributorily liable if it had knowledge that infringing Perfect 10 images were available using its search engine, could take simple measures to prevent further damage to Perfect 10's copyrighted works, and failed to take such steps.
I don't think it's a fear that I won't understand the nuances. I think it's more likely a demonstration that those denying the analogy don't understand the nuances themselves.
We might think of this like the attorney-client privilege. If a lawyer reveals his client’s confidences to a reporter, he can be punished for violating that privilege -- but the newspaper cannot constitutionally be punished for publishing the information.
That example would fall under the duty of confidentiality, not the attorney-client privilege. Sorry, but I've been studying for my upcoming MPRE... ;)
On the post: What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast
On the post: Deep Linking Could Be Infringement In Germany If Website Puts Even Ridiculous Weak Attempts To Block It
This seems illogical and backwards to me. You would give the least protection where it is needed the most. You would only give protection where none was needed.
On the post: Techdirt 2010: The Numbers.
Re: Re:
On the post: Techdirt 2010: The Numbers.
On the post: Mass Infringement Pre-Settlement Lawyers Team Up To All Fail Together
Re: Re:
How do figure they're misjoined? I thought USCG has done a good job pleading sufficient facts to justify joinder under Rule 20. The judges have agreed.
On the post: 50 Cent Using Twitter To Pump Up Stock... But Is It Legal?
Re: Re:
This stock closed at 10 cents per share on Friday, and then it opened at 45 cents per share Monday morning.
http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=yeehaw
On the post: 50 Cent Using Twitter To Pump Up Stock... But Is It Legal?
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=HNHI.OB+Interactive#chart3:symbol=hnhi.ob;range=5d;indicato r=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
On the post: Mass Infringement Pre-Settlement Lawyers Team Up To All Fail Together
On the post: Monster Cable Issues Yet Another Bogus DMCA Notice To A Search Engine
I don't think that's what the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10 said at all, particularly since the court did not rule on the merits. The issue on appeal was a preliminary injunction, so only the likelihood of success on the merits was discussed. In fact, the court reversed the district court's rejection of the possibility that Google could be secondarily liable for infringement of Perfect 10's full-size images. In other words, the Ninth Circuit explicitly ruled that Google could be liable for what it found, i.e., the exact opposite of what you're saying they ruled. You might want to read that case again.
From the opinion:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/12/03/0655405.pdf
On the post: How Trademark Law Is Supposed To Work: Groupon Sues Australian Clone That Tried To Squat Groupon Name
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Trademark Law Is Supposed To Work: Groupon Sues Australian Clone That Tried To Squat Groupon Name
Re: Re:
On the post: How Trademark Law Is Supposed To Work: Groupon Sues Australian Clone That Tried To Squat Groupon Name
On the post: Marcus Carab's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
On the post: Why Senator Lieberman's Censorship Law Is Unconstitutional And A Danger To Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Whitney v California overruled
On the post: When You Have A 'Chief Content Protection Officer,' You're Doing It Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: When You Have A 'Chief Content Protection Officer,' You're Doing It Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: When You Have A 'Chief Content Protection Officer,' You're Doing It Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Senator Lieberman's Censorship Law Is Unconstitutional And A Danger To Free Speech
Re: Re:
On the post: When You Have A 'Chief Content Protection Officer,' You're Doing It Wrong
Re: Re:
Seems analogous to me. In both cases someone commits an act that interferes with another person's rights.
On the post: Why Senator Lieberman's Censorship Law Is Unconstitutional And A Danger To Free Speech
That example would fall under the duty of confidentiality, not the attorney-client privilege. Sorry, but I've been studying for my upcoming MPRE... ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistate_Professional_Responsibility_Examination
Next >>