Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
and when they get exposed as a bogus claim those bastards go to jail for fraud
did you read the post by pleasure he was arguing a summary judgement would stand even though the higher court explictly ruled that level of evidence was invalid proof of guilt.
your trying to argue that knowingly presenting a claim that you are guilty of copyright infringement because the ip address was assigned to that account, when the higher courts explictly ruled that was not adequate evidence is some how legitimate.
WTF.
we are not talking about an obscure case we are talking about a major news story that was syndicated to over 8352 sites . do you really believe judges are that incompetent.
this is why the need a triple damages counter claim for wrongful cases being filed, you guys are trying to argue in favor of deliberately filing bogus claims against people rather then do the necessary level of investigation.
|
Um most of us would have no clue that IP's could not be used and a higher court threw them out as evidence. Since you do know, you could show up yourself or fuck not show up and just mail in your answer with a motion to dismiss stating what the precedent was.
Yes I know ignorance is not a defense legally, but it is not really a crime either.
To make it simple to keep the whole process moving along I will break it down to a 3rd grade level.
1. Someone sues you.
2. You get served, or they file to go on without you present.
3. You are supposed to reply with your answer and any pre trial motions.
4. Plaintiff can respond to you answer and any motions. If so you repeat 3 and 4.
5. Eventually trial. If you skipped 3-4 or stop replying, and do not show up you loose. They proceed with sentencing.
The end.
So in your IP case, you get served. You answer the fucking plaintiff through the proper format paperwork. You would say, IP addresses are not allowed to be used as evidence according to this higher court and case number. You attach a motion to dismiss.
If plaintiff does not have a good enough answer to yours, the judge will throw it out. *nobody will go to jail unless you can convince the judge they do this often and know better, even then it is not assured.
Now the judge does have the option of hearing the case anyways. Really up to him/her but rarely will they unless the plaintiff has a damn good argument.
Get it now?
Havent you ever heard of people using the courts to just financially ruin someone and they know they will not win? Hell the FBI even said "You can beat the wrap but not the ride". Understand what that means?