Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2010 @ 7:29pm

   
   

   ViaCon trying to con its way through the courts.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2010 @ 7:32pm

   
   

   Well this was bound to happen, those people are using less important rullings to make it common law what they want, they go after the small ones first to create precedents and then when it is all set they try the big ones.
   
   Is like using pedo crazy talk to pass ridiculous laws for one reason and then use those same laws for other things.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   makes you wonder

   

   kyle clements (profile), Aug 11th, 2010 @ 7:36pm

   
   

   In cases like this, when everyone just knows the losing side will appeal, what's the point of even going through the first few steps?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2010 @ 7:41pm

   
   

   Endless appeals system indeed...

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   So enlighten me...

   

   Jay (profile), Aug 11th, 2010 @ 7:52pm

   
   

   We knew this was going to happen. But will it really do anything when the safe harbors are right square looking Viacom in the face? What new argument could they try to make their case look any better?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re: So enlighten me...

   

   Richard, Aug 11th, 2010 @ 8:33pm

   
   

   I think the argument will be a "we can do this all day" settlement. Google stands to loose a lot more than Viacom will spend on staff filed appeals. At some point, Google may fork over some cash just to take off the risk prospectus.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: makes you wonder

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2010 @ 8:52pm

   
   

   Simple: To pay the lawyers.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: Re: So enlighten me...

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2010 @ 10:37pm

   
   

   Such is an abuse of our legal system.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Paul`, Aug 11th, 2010 @ 11:52pm

   
   

   Now, I'm gonna guess that Viacom will run out of their lawyers pocket money before Google.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: makes you wonder

    

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 12th, 2010 @ 1:33am

    
    

    There is a point to it, and the judge knows it. That’s why he was careful to explain his reasoning in meticulous detail, to leave as little wiggle room for appeal as possible.
    
    Now it’s up to the appeals court to confirm how well he did his job.
    
    #include <stddisclaimer/ianal.h>

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    TDR, Aug 12th, 2010 @ 5:32am

    
    

    This is why appeals need to be limited, and sometimes denied entirely. Otherwise we have courts needlessly bogged down in the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal of the appeal...

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    Mike, you once again misstate the law and the facts

    

    Tom Sydnor, Aug 12th, 2010 @ 7:04am

    
    

    Well, Mike, you have the substance wrong, and you have thus missed the interesting part of the story. As any first-year law student would know, the summary-judgment ruling in favor of YouTube DID NOT create a final appealable order.
    
    Consequently, Viacom has done something telling here: They must have agreed to dismiss their case, pending the results of an appeal of the safe-harbor ruling.
    
    That is highly unusual. I once advised a client to do that, but they wouldn't. In effect, this means that Viacom must have few or no doubts that Judge Stanton's reasoning will be rejected on appeal. I agree. Here is a short paper that explains why:
    
    http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2010/pop17.14-Grokster_Redux.pdf
    
    In short, Judge Stanton's ruling is dead-wrong on the law for all the same reasons that the district-court decision in Grokster was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court. --Tom

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    Re: Re: So enlighten me...

    

    Sean T Henry (profile), Aug 12th, 2010 @ 7:59am

    
    

    Or google could just hire some cheap lawyers to deal with the case just keeping it going and not spend much money.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment