"So what the judge is saying is that any lawyer in any civil case who offers a "settlement before going to court" is somehow a money grubber?"
actually I believe its more the fact that the court should not be a "Collection Agency" for the lawyers and others. ask yourself this, What is the purpose of the court?
Wow.
"I would say that the judge needs to look at the other side, and see that massive copyright infringement is taking away millions of dollars from the useful arts.(citation needed, WHERE is this loss of million of dollars coming from; the public sure would LOVE to know) Perhaps a little balance might clear up the judge's clearly clouded vision."
and by balance what do you mean? the fact that he should proceed to just give the IP address info? or the fact that joining together separate parties and creating a class action lawsuit would be best? the court is in the business of justice and that usually means giving the parties a chance to actually get justice. if the court believes each individual should be tried separately then others that's fine by me since actual justice happens.
peace
Deane
I wonder whether or not in concord NH, if their is a harassment law that the police officer could be sited with since he was clearly harassing the OP. be nice for the officer to lose his job for trying to violate the OP's civil rights. good for him to stand up for his rights.
I wonder what would happen if in the cell phone contract that the provider would forward ALL such requests for location based data to the subscriber? would the government then not request that information?
I wish the courts rule on this really soon. be nice if somebody would start screaming "everyday that you keep my laptop YOUR MAKING ME LOSE MILLIONS!"
patriot act = when citizens are considered criminals BEFORE they commit any crime. thanks congress and senate and a dishonest president! >.
laughable mrwilson, what money she gets is maybe 2% of all the $ that is made from this movie. she created it, should she NOT have the right to view it since its her work?
also its likely given the way copyright stands that she WILL NEVER be able to watch what she created EVER!
as I said in comments before, WHY isn't the UN screaming at france for violation of FREE SPEECH! this law should NEVER have been made, especially since doing this will have the WORST impact on the short sided media companies. they kick all the infringers off = they make the decision to boycott their LARGEST customer base. they GO OUT OF BUSINESS or start screaming at their captive government to come BAIL THEM OUT! >.
perfection in terms of knowing EVERYTHING is what comment #1 is mandating. good job troll. your #1 on the idiot meter.
now as for the article, guess the UN won't be SCREAMING at the france government for violating a persons free speech!
I can't wait for them to try to censor my speech. if they make a claim that MY WORK is infringing I will personally sue ALL parties involved and publicly embarrass them
I'd prefer to trust the guys that created the internet and fully understand the technology involved. MPAA/RIAA would get sued by all the geeks I bet for their livelyhoods since they'd have to work 24/7/365 to make patches due to the fact that the internet won't run the way it was designed. or maybe google/microsoft/all the rest of the big companies might just decide its time to BUYOUT ALL the recording companies and just shut RIAA/MPAA DOWN!
another case of government corruption, how sad. now if only the DHS would stop their whining and let us grope them, then maybe things would change!
looks like german people need to find what drugs GEMA is smoking and destroy them. or maybe its time for ALL the authors to sue GEMA out of existence, or maybe take it over in a hostile buyout of GEMA stock!
the politicians for sure won't ever make any anti-troll legislation since the biggest troll is the MPAA/RIAA. so I do hope some good comes out of this like making it harder to bring real lawsuits for what is in the public best interests!
"Unlike the specious arguments and preposterous statements of the professional lobbyists for Google, Yahoo and their marionettes, EFF, PK and CDT."
interesting since EFF at least PREDATES the internet and all those other tech companies that now exist. you sir need some fact checking before spouting NONSENSE!
my two cents. not a crime but sure is creepy. and to all the trolls technically a mall is a PUBLIC place and all the pertaining laws apply. the worst that could happen is civil charges for hmm possible violation of TOS IF they had that posted clearly near or on entrance to the shop.
well this serf at least, because I'd love to see a bloody violent revolution for the fascist regime in the USA!
interesting for sure. now scientists can maybe cure trolldom!
tsa of course since they now want to branch out from the airport to well EVERYWHERE!
Actually, Fort Wayne would be a good example. In obscene literature, there is often plenty of non-obscene material. That is to say, the entire work isn't an endless obscenity, but rather portions of the book are obscene, and the rest of it would be acceptable.
"once upon a time" isn't obscene. Neither is "and they all lived happily ever after once their wounds healed".
So what if 50% of the book isn't obscene? Should it all be protected because there is some protected speech in there?
The argument is key here. If the websites are rife with copyright violations, the presence of some protected speech on them shouldn't give them any more coverage than the book that is less than 50% obscene by word count.
The other examples you cite are similar. You cannot protect criminal actions behind free speech (unless you are in politics). You cannot use the first amendment as some sort of bunker to hide your illegal activities in.
As a result, the first amendment arguments are nice, but they are relatively meaningless, because they ignore the basic facts about the websites in question.
finally a good part against WB/RIAA/MPAA! the agreement that WB makes when they use the provided tool constitutes a contract which the court should uphold. and then maybe just maybe WB is kicked out from lawsuit when they are sued by all affected parties!