How does the executive branch enforce a law without first interpreting it? How does the legislature create laws without interpreting what they mean? I'm guessing you're also unaware of the fact that most laws in the US are not created by legislatures.
When did I ever say that it's my "position to determine how the law is interpreted"? I didn't. I'm merely expressing my opinion about what I think the proper interpretation of the law is in this case. These are comments sections where people are invited to express their opinion. That's what I'm doing. If you don't like my arguments, then explain to me how they're wrong.
Again, just because one judge interprets something one way, that doesn't mean that that is the gospel truth. Did you ever notice how appellate courts reverse district court judges? They get reversed because the appellate court thinks the district court got it wrong. It happens all the time.
Their interpretation is, by definition, the correct one whether you like it or not.
And you do realize that district court decisions are not binding precedent, right? You could have one judge say Righthaven has standing and another one say they don't, even in the same district, even looking at the same facts.
I imagine that whichever one hurts Righthaven is the one you think is "right."
So you don't think it's possible that a district court judge can be wrong? That's amazing to me. Believe it or not, but judges get shit wrong all the time. Even supreme courts take up a case, decide one way, and then rehear the case later only to decide the other way. It's not black-and-white like you think.
Just because a couple district court judges interpreted Silvers a certain way doesn't mean their interpretation is correct. I'd like to see what the Ninth Circuit thinks about this interpretation of their precedent. To me, it seems obviously mistaken.
All three branches of government interpret the law, by the law. It's weird that you think otherwise.
Whether their legal position is flawed is a matter of debate. As far as hurting innocent people goes, I disagree. Let's not forget that there's evidence that the defendants are tortfeasors. You may disagree with copyright laws, but it seems clear to me that most of these defendants got themselves into this mess in the first place.
Any chance you'll admit that there's been no Fifth Amendment Due Process problems with the seizures now? You were so adamant that there were, if I recall correctly. Not even Rojadirecta is arguing it. That should tell you something too.
Furthermore, Hart still clings to the outlandish position that Arcara allows the ex parte seizure of expressive material.
The fact that the United States Department of Justice is making the Arcara argument should tell you that perhaps it's not as outlandish as it may seem to you. The fact is, Terry made the Arcara argument months ago, and now the DOJ is making the same argument. If you were less biased, and perhaps if you understood the argument better, you might even say that Terry's been making the correct argument all along.
I think they're trying to find the minimum amount of rights that can be transferred to Righthaven while still imparting standing. At the rate they're going, it's going to take a while, and they'll probably run out of resources before they find the magic agreement. They really should just assign the rights to Righthaven outright, with a non-exclusive license back. Period. All that other funny stuff just looks bad.
I just want to license some of Righthaven's intellectual property. I've been trying for months to contact them to get permission to reproduce some of the articles they own. They never reply.
I had said last week that I'm giving Righthaven the benefit of the doubt. I've since rethought my position and now I'm neutral. They get neither a presumption of good faith nor bad faith from me. I don't think they're malicious, but I don't think they're not malicious either.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think there's anything in copyright law that says that. The point of allowing an assignee to sue for infringements that happened when his assignor held the copyright is to make that assignee whole. Here, the assignee is only getting the copyright because it's damaged goods--the value to Righthaven in the copyright is the infringement. It's an conundrum since that's the opposite of how it usually works. But I'm not aware of anything in the Copyright Act or caselaw that disallows it.
I don't care if Righthaven gets sued off the face of the planet, and in fact I think they probably will, but I still think they have standing under the SAA. This judge, like the other two, has some bad analysis on the point, IMO.
Righthaven's strategy now appears to be changing the agreement every time a judge points to something they don't like. It will be interesting to see how in the world a judge can rule they don't have standing under these new agreements.
Of course, Righthaven still has the problem with the unauthorized practice of law, and I'm really anxious to get a ruling on that. If the assignment-plus-kickback thing is in fact UPL, they're fucked.
This does sound like the SCO thing from what you've told me. I didn't follow that case though. I did read a bit about it on groklaw at your suggestion. Interesting stuff.
More bad analysis from a judge who doesn't understand standing in a copyright case. Ugh. When a copyright owner grants an exclusive license to another, that owner still has standing to sue for prior infringements. I'm amazed that none of the judges address this simple fact. I blame Righthaven for not briefing it well enough. Well, that and pissing off the judges so much that they decided to rule against them no matter what their arguments were.
It's worth noting too that if the government's evidence is insufficient now, they can always gather more evidence later in discovery to get the evidence they need. Perhaps they intend to get the server logs to do just this. Maybe with that in mind it doesn't look so good for Rojadirecta. I don't really know. I'm just enjoying the show.
(c) Burden of Proof.— In a suit or action brought under any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of any property—
(1) the burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture;
(2) the Government may use evidence gathered after the filing of a complaint for forfeiture to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that property is subject to forfeiture; and
(3) if the Government’s theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the Government shall establish that there was a substantial connection between the property and the offense.
My read is that they have to show by a preponderance that the domain names were used to commit criminal copyright infringement. I believe they can show they're used to commit infringement, as demonstrated by the agents using the site, but I'm not sure they've shown criminal infringement.
In your murder example, they'd have to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a murder had been committed. And that's what I don't think they've done here. Where's the murder? Where's the criminal infringement?
I haven't read a lot of caselaw about this, so I appreciate the input.
But what evidence is there that any crimes were committed? They have lots of evidence that Rojadirecta attempted to facilitate infringement, but do they have any evidence that infringement actually occurred?
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it's not that the judges disagreed. It's that they didn't even seem to realize that this is the proper issue to be looking at.
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, just because one judge interprets something one way, that doesn't mean that that is the gospel truth. Did you ever notice how appellate courts reverse district court judges? They get reversed because the appellate court thinks the district court got it wrong. It happens all the time.
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you do realize that district court decisions are not binding precedent, right? You could have one judge say Righthaven has standing and another one say they don't, even in the same district, even looking at the same facts.
I imagine that whichever one hurts Righthaven is the one you think is "right."
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because a couple district court judges interpreted Silvers a certain way doesn't mean their interpretation is correct. I'd like to see what the Ninth Circuit thinks about this interpretation of their precedent. To me, it seems obviously mistaken.
All three branches of government interpret the law, by the law. It's weird that you think otherwise.
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re:
The fact that the United States Department of Justice is making the Arcara argument should tell you that perhaps it's not as outlandish as it may seem to you. The fact is, Terry made the Arcara argument months ago, and now the DOJ is making the same argument. If you were less biased, and perhaps if you understood the argument better, you might even say that Terry's been making the correct argument all along.
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re: Re:
LMAO!
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I had said last week that I'm giving Righthaven the benefit of the doubt. I've since rethought my position and now I'm neutral. They get neither a presumption of good faith nor bad faith from me. I don't think they're malicious, but I don't think they're not malicious either.
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re:
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re: Re:
Righthaven's strategy now appears to be changing the agreement every time a judge points to something they don't like. It will be interesting to see how in the world a judge can rule they don't have standing under these new agreements.
Of course, Righthaven still has the problem with the unauthorized practice of law, and I'm really anxious to get a ruling on that. If the assignment-plus-kickback thing is in fact UPL, they're fucked.
This does sound like the SCO thing from what you've told me. I didn't follow that case though. I did read a bit about it on groklaw at your suggestion. Interesting stuff.
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Re:
On the post: Righthaven Loses Again (Yes, Again), With Another Judge... But Immediately Refiles Lawsuit
Righthaven does have a shiny, new agreement with Stephens Media. I think this is SAA 3.0, but it's hard to keep track at this point You can read it here: http://ia700509.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.75386/gov.uscourts.nvd.75386.134.1.pdf
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My read is that they have to show by a preponderance that the domain names were used to commit criminal copyright infringement. I believe they can show they're used to commit infringement, as demonstrated by the agents using the site, but I'm not sure they've shown criminal infringement.
In your murder example, they'd have to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a murder had been committed. And that's what I don't think they've done here. Where's the murder? Where's the criminal infringement?
I haven't read a lot of caselaw about this, so I appreciate the input.
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>