Okay I'm admittedly a simple person & I'm a dumb fuck when it comes to anything law related and I've been learning slowly as this entire shitshow has progressed.
"The assertion that Plaintiff has to prove Moon’s users were guided by the FAQs specifically is not Plaintiff’s responsibility" Does this not fall under the requirement to show proof that the Court had not considered/etc previous motions/etc in their entirety? As in, it IS his responsibility? The Court disagreed with him and found him wrong, and Skordas' reply had further pointed out that in Russ' response to the courts disagreement he hadn't provided proof to the FAQ showing any form of infringment & how the Court had been wrong.
Skordas also brings up that Grokster had involved intentional preformed acts to encourage users to infringe on copyrights, whereas Russell has been pulling it in while relying on something being merely plausible, or as Skordas stated, the Possibility. I noticed that Russell had replied that the Defendents had not shown that the FAQs did not clearly express or stimulate copyright infringment.
Which Skordas had already pointed out as it WAS made clear in the FAQ that actual copyright infringment was not allowed & that fair use WOULD be allowed, as it was lawful purpose and legitimate was not an infringement of copyright under 17 USC 107. Which Skordas then continued with that they had taken no steps to actually faciliate or encourage copyright infringement.
Skordas even pointed out that what Russell said about "One could easily turn to Moon's FAQs and feel they are allowed to upload to his site because Greer or any other Lolcow isn't famous" wasn't the same as inducing or encouraging users to infringe copyrights even if it was true about what he said.
Am I reading Russ' reply right in that he's continuing down the "No, you're wrong" route? I noticed he's attempting to draw more pity feels, and he also blatantly lies again because him responding in such a matter DOES continue to show that he was unhappy with the outcome. Especially with the "case really meant alot to Plaintiff" line before.
Russell bringing up the line with "No way could any Court not" also feels like another variant of his line about WHY WOULD ANY LAWYER WILLINGLY TAKE NULLS CASE?
"No where in that holding was Plaintiff required to act as a psychologist and study the minds of the direct infringers and prove they relied on said messages" Seems entirely written with the intent of being PA and I'm failing to see how it is something he believes would help him sway the judge.
I also noticed he continued using Respectfully, again calling out the Court for "overlooking the facts" and that they did "not follow the guidance of the highest court in following findings of inducement" which I remember reading Skordas replying to with explanations that the Court HAD taken everything into consideration and decided the use of something was wrong OR that something didn't apply to this particular case/situation.
The entire thing reads like Russell is being told why and how and he's going "THATS NOT MY REALITY SO YOU MISUSED IT, DIDNT READ IT RIGHT, AND ARE WRONG" and now I'm wondering if/what Skordas' reply will sound like.
