It is a well considered, carefully chosen state, in order to maximize costs, in violation of FRCP, gain maximum advantage, and cause maximum probability of an out of court settlement. Or just out of spite.
A hypothetical example with names like Joe, Alice, Bob, etc instead of Solvera Defendants, Contracting Attorney, Customer, Consumer, etc. It's hard to follow who is what.
Examples:
Joe FakeCo, Inc is a Solvera Defendant company. Bob Deceived is a Contracting Attorney. Etc.
This, with a simple narrative of how the scam starts and progresses would greatly aid in comprehending what is going on.
If I read this complex story right, the lawyers are giving false information to the court in good faith. The lawyers have been lied to, and believing those lies to be true, the lawyers pass that on to the court. The court believes in the credibility of the lawyers.
Maybe lying to the lawyer is perjury. And if so, then that is where the perjury is happening.
But maybe I am misunderstanding?
There needs to be an even better simpler explanation of how this scam works. With a few fictional names of various parties.
We don't want people to have an excessive amount of free speech. Nor would we want an excess of too much liberty. If they get too much of either, they should have to have to pay for it. Nevermind that it was already paid for in blood.
I wish you could move to get the costs of this pointless costly lawsuit. He knew, or should have known, before filing that there was no substance to his complaint.
If you look on YouTube for Bad Lip Reading, you can find some comically hilarious results. You can clearly see the video of the person, often a famous or well known person, with their lips moving. The audio is the "bad lip reading" person saying something completely different, that just happens to fit perfectly with the video of the person's mouth and lips.
If software lip reading is used against someone, they could argue that they said something different.
[effort to stop...] peer to peer filesharing. It was a strategy, it should be noted, that was dropped because it wasn't particularly effective. But that isn't going to stop Village Roadshow from giving it another go.
Back in the 1980's "copy protection" was used. (A primitive form or DRM.) Then came an arms race in tools to counter DRM vs better DRM. Being ineffective at stopping piracy, but very effective at stopping paying customers, copy protection was eventually abandoned industry wide as a bad idea.
But come the turn of the century, and DRM is back. DVD copy protection was broken by a 14 year old kid. Other DRM keeps getting broken. Once again, it's just an arms race.
So the RIAA tried suing its way to prosperity -- even though they were already wildly prosperous. The result was a PR disaster. And rightly so.
So then the MPAA decided it was such a disaster that they should definitely get in on the fail and try suing everyone on the planet.
Then copyright trolls. Righthaven. Prenda. Both come to mind, but I know there were more.
So Village Roadshow. Remind me to never, ever again watch anything with their logo in it. Ever. I don't care how good it is. There simply are other forms of entertainment. And more possible choices of material to watch, read or otherwise engage in than there are hours left in the remainder of one's life.
Hollywood is not interested in solving any problems in human trafficking. They pull the strings of politicians. Therefore politicians are not interested. But politicians have to be seen as doing something.
Let me hypothesize how we get here. Hollywood sees Copyright Infringement as the worst possible crime of all crimes on planet Earth. Far far worse than murder, rape, injury or human trafficking.
Hollywood sees CDA 230 as its arch enemy. Also the TLAs no doubt hate CDA 230. So they see an opportunity to get rid of CDA 230 under the false pretense of stopping human trafficking. The fact that it would actually make human trafficking worse is of no concern for them, IMO.
Because:
[x] Think of the copyrights! [_] Think of the children! [_] Think of the terrorists! [x] Think of the campaign contributions!
The attorney says that he doesn’t use “the Prenda strategy” to try to extract nuisance settlements from innocent people.
Speaking of Prenda tragedy, then why do you even bring it up?
It's like me suddenly blurting out that I would never wish anything bad to happen to dear Mr. Martin Shkreli. If that were really the case, that I had such a wish, then why would I blurt out such a statement unbidden and unprompted?
The DMCA counter notice doesn't need any more than the same level of good faith belief that the DMCA notice itself requires.
So if an RIAA member can in good faith, claim that someone's nature recordings of birds chirping is an infringement on one of their musical recordings, then it is a pretty low bar.
Smart Locks (just like most IoT or "smart" devices) are a bad idea unless you can fully control them just as you control their non-smart counterparts.
My smart lock, for example, should be under MY control as equally as a dumb lock is under my control. It does not and cannot obey some internet cloud connected mother ship.
Similarly for all other modern devices that get embedded microcontrollers. If the owner purchaser consumer cannot fully control them, then they are a bad idea.
Now what does this say about modern PCs which you cannot fully control? With back doors literally baked into the microprocessor.
Let's not call politicians idiots. Being an effective politician requires qualifications. Pick some. [_] Greed [x] Lust for power over other people's lives [_] Confirming your own greatness in your own eyes [x] Proving your greatness in the eyes of others [x] A strong desire to be written about in history books [_] Desire to be evil
It's not idiocy. It's a deliberate, calculated, willful effort to do something evil to benefit someone. Either the politician. Their family. Lobbyists. Gift givers. Worshipers. Followers. Etc. Benefit anyone but the public good.
Sony in 2005 was a literal example of this. If you put their audio CD into your PC, it installed a rootkit with software to prevent you ripping the CD.
On the post: Yet Another Report Says The Rate Of TV Cord Cutting Is Worse Than Anybody Thought
It's not WORSE than anybody thought
Cord Cutting is BETTER than anybody thought.
(I've mentioned before.)
On the post: Charles Harder Loses Again: You Can't Just File Defamation Lawsuits In A Random State Because You Like Its Statute Of Limitations
It's NOT a Random State
On the post: Texas Attorney General Issues Complaint Against Reputation Management Company For Bogus Lawsuits
Re: Re: Civil?
A hypothetical example with names like Joe, Alice, Bob, etc instead of Solvera Defendants, Contracting Attorney, Customer, Consumer, etc. It's hard to follow who is what.
Examples:
Joe FakeCo, Inc is a Solvera Defendant company.
Bob Deceived is a Contracting Attorney.
Etc.
This, with a simple narrative of how the scam starts and progresses would greatly aid in comprehending what is going on.
On the post: Texas Attorney General Issues Complaint Against Reputation Management Company For Bogus Lawsuits
Re: Civil?
Maybe lying to the lawyer is perjury. And if so, then that is where the perjury is happening.
But maybe I am misunderstanding?
There needs to be an even better simpler explanation of how this scam works. With a few fictional names of various parties.
On the post: Bill Introduced That Would Make Arrested Protesters Pay Police Overtime, Gov't Expenses
Too much free speech
On the post: Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt
I wish you could recover your costs
On the post: Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Hurricane Harvey Is Proof We Need To Militarize Our Police Forces
Typical say one thing while believing something else
What he says: militarize police because of crime after a hurricane!
What he thinks: militarize police in order to stop hurricanes from making landfall!
On the post: CCTV + Lip-Reading Software = Even Less Privacy, Even More Surveillance
Bad Lip Reading
If software lip reading is used against someone, they could argue that they said something different.
On the post: Village Roadshow Promises To Mete Out Its Brand Of Justice As Inequitably As Possible
If at first you don't succeed . . .
. . . use a shorter bungee.
Back in the 1980's "copy protection" was used. (A primitive form or DRM.) Then came an arms race in tools to counter DRM vs better DRM. Being ineffective at stopping piracy, but very effective at stopping paying customers, copy protection was eventually abandoned industry wide as a bad idea.
But come the turn of the century, and DRM is back. DVD copy protection was broken by a 14 year old kid. Other DRM keeps getting broken. Once again, it's just an arms race.
So the RIAA tried suing its way to prosperity -- even though they were already wildly prosperous. The result was a PR disaster. And rightly so.
So then the MPAA decided it was such a disaster that they should definitely get in on the fail and try suing everyone on the planet.
Then copyright trolls. Righthaven. Prenda. Both come to mind, but I know there were more.
So Village Roadshow. Remind me to never, ever again watch anything with their logo in it. Ever. I don't care how good it is. There simply are other forms of entertainment. And more possible choices of material to watch, read or otherwise engage in than there are hours left in the remainder of one's life.
On the post: Sex Trafficking Expert: CDA 230 Helps Victims And SESTA Would Harm Trafficking Victims
Re:
Let me hypothesize how we get here. Hollywood sees Copyright Infringement as the worst possible crime of all crimes on planet Earth. Far far worse than murder, rape, injury or human trafficking.
Hollywood sees CDA 230 as its arch enemy. Also the TLAs no doubt hate CDA 230. So they see an opportunity to get rid of CDA 230 under the false pretense of stopping human trafficking. The fact that it would actually make human trafficking worse is of no concern for them, IMO.
Because:
[x] Think of the copyrights!
[_] Think of the children!
[_] Think of the terrorists!
[x] Think of the campaign contributions!
On the post: Trump's Latest Nonsensical Announcement About Censoring The Internet
Re: Re:
Of course he loves the poorly educated. He can relate to them.
On the post: Copyright Troll Insists Septuagenarian Is An Enormous Copyright Infringer, Then Runs Away After Backlash
Doesn't use the Prenda tragedy
Speaking of Prenda tragedy, then why do you even bring it up?
It's like me suddenly blurting out that I would never wish anything bad to happen to dear Mr. Martin Shkreli. If that were really the case, that I had such a wish, then why would I blurt out such a statement unbidden and unprompted?
On the post: YouTube Personality Upset About Criticism Of His Video Loses Infringement/Defamation Lawsuit
Nice precedent here
The DMCA counter notice doesn't need any more than the same level of good faith belief that the DMCA notice itself requires.
So if an RIAA member can in good faith, claim that someone's nature recordings of birds chirping is an infringement on one of their musical recordings, then it is a pretty low bar.
On the post: GCHQ Knew FBI Wanted To Arrest MalwareTech, Let Him Fly To The US To Be Arrested There
The US government has done worse
So I think the US would do this to one of its own citizens in a heartbeat. That doesn't excuse the GCHQ.
On the post: 'Smart' Lock Vendor Locks Hundreds Out Of Their Home With Bungled Firmware Update
Can Smart Locks ever be a good idea?
My smart lock, for example, should be under MY control as equally as a dumb lock is under my control. It does not and cannot obey some internet cloud connected mother ship.
Similarly for all other modern devices that get embedded microcontrollers. If the owner purchaser consumer cannot fully control them, then they are a bad idea.
Now what does this say about modern PCs which you cannot fully control? With back doors literally baked into the microprocessor.
On the post: 'Smart' Lock Vendor Locks Hundreds Out Of Their Home With Bungled Firmware Update
Re:
The government is not trying to weaken encryption so it can read your messages.
The government would never try to weaken smart locks so it can get into your home.
On the post: Former FCC Commissioner Tries To Claim Net Neutrality Has Aided The Rise Of White Supremacy
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Former FCC Commissioner Tries To Claim Net Neutrality Has Aided The Rise Of White Supremacy
Re:
[_] Greed
[x] Lust for power over other people's lives
[_] Confirming your own greatness in your own eyes
[x] Proving your greatness in the eyes of others
[x] A strong desire to be written about in history books
[_] Desire to be evil
It's not idiocy. It's a deliberate, calculated, willful effort to do something evil to benefit someone. Either the politician. Their family. Lobbyists. Gift givers. Worshipers. Followers. Etc. Benefit anyone but the public good.
On the post: Former FCC Commissioner Tries To Claim Net Neutrality Has Aided The Rise Of White Supremacy
Net Neutrality is neutral
It's the good we hope for.
It's the bad we sometimes suffer with.
Don't blame Net Neutrality. Or at least have the (in)decency to also blame computer manufacturers, and electric utilities.
On the post: The MPAA Narrative About Piracy Flips To Danger From Pirate Sites Now That It Has Lost The Moral Argument
Re: Creedence
Next >>