Since he is claiming to be an expert, he should be held to the "Expert Witness" criteria from the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, found in Section 702 thereof (see https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702 et seq.).
Under those conditions, he is NOT qualified to testify. His testimony should be stricken for cause.
Just who is engaging in criminal copyright infringement ??
By making those unauthorized derivative works based on all those copyrighted web pages, it Airtel and Flash Networks who are engaging in criminal copyright infringement.
That's how I take it, when I put on my web-author hat!
At what point does a false copyright-infringement claim like this become slander? The claim is certainly (1) false, does (2) cause damage, and (3) falsely accuses Jacksepticeye of illegal behavior.
It seems to me it ought to be an open-and-shut slander case. And a huge punitive-damage award would help pour encourager les autres.
By saying "a property right granted by the Government...", the patent-lawyers are already slanting the matter. They should say "a limited monopoly granted by the Government..." Calling it "property" starts the matter off with a lie.
1) Authors self-publishing directly with Amazon get 70% instead of the maybe-15% they get from publishers (though of course the readers do not benefit from editorial skill, etc.); and
2) If I buy a physical book, I will generally eventually donate it to charity for a tax write-off (effectively discounting the price by one-third). I can't do that with e-books. From my point of view, if e-books are priced at more than two-thirds of hard-copy--and that's most of them--they are overpriced.
This seems all-too-close to "Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents", 403 U.S. 388 (1971), in which the US Supreme Court ruled Bivens was awarded damages from Federal Bureau of Narcotics agents who acted to violate his Fourth Amendment rights. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents.
Those CBP agents who did this should be held responsible in court.
On the post: FBI's James Comey: I Know All The Experts Insist Backdooring Encryption Is A Bad Idea, But Maybe It's Because They Haven't Really Tried
Criteria for Testimony
Under those conditions, he is NOT qualified to testify. His testimony should be stricken for cause.
On the post: Guy Reveals Airtel Secretly Inserting JavaScript, Gets Threatened With Jail For Criminal Copyright Infringement
Copyright infringement
By making those unauthorized derivative works based on all those copyrighted web pages, it Airtel and Flash Networks who are engaging in criminal copyright infringement.
That's how I take it, when I put on my web-author hat!
On the post: Prominent YouTube Personality Locked Out Of His Account After A Bogus Copyright Claim
At what point...
It seems to me it ought to be an open-and-shut slander case. And a huge punitive-damage award would help pour encourager les autres.
On the post: US Solicitor General, Don Verrilli, Tells Supreme Court That Of Course You Can Infringe On An Invalid Patent
Already slanting the language
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
What's the threshold for libel suits?
And would it be good to establish a precedent for class-action libel suits?
On the post: Cop To Cameraman: 'If You're Invoking Your Rights, You Must Be Doing Something Wrong'
No Bivens?
(Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) ).
FWIW.
On the post: Accepting Amazon's DRM Makes It Impossible To Challenge Its Monopoly
Two points
2) If I buy a physical book, I will generally eventually donate it to charity for a tax write-off (effectively discounting the price by one-third). I can't do that with e-books. From my point of view, if e-books are priced at more than two-thirds of hard-copy--and that's most of them--they are overpriced.
On the post: Homeland Security Detained US Citizen Inside The US, Used Intercepted Emails To Quiz Her About Her Sex Life
Definitely time for a Bivens suit
Those CBP agents who did this should be held responsible in court.
Next >>