Quote:
Originally Posted by After Shock Media
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?
|
again not the point i was making pleasure was claiming summary judgements happen automatically just because you don't show up no matter how bogus the complaint, no matter if the judge knows the case law.
we are talking about multiple higher court rulings which were well publized , so either the judge is incompetent or he is corrupt either way he would not stay on the bench long if he unilaterally ignored precedent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bossman
Read between the lines... they are sending the signal to the politicians that current laws are not good enough, and politicians will respond with new insane copyright laws.
You really think politicians are ready to sacrifice billion dollar industries and western cultural imperialism, because some kids found a way to share pirated content with the average joes?  |
using the metric of the RIAA the fair use economy is 4.3 trillion dollars, you think politicians are stupid enough to destroy industries 10 x as big just to protect the profits of entertainment industry, especially when you can monetize the traffic and turn it into the biggest money maker since the vcr (another so called piracy device that was also going to destroy the industry)