Cultcow Russell Greer / @ just_some_dude_named_russell29 / A Safer Nevada PAC - Swift-Obsessed Sex Pest, Convicted of E-Stalking, "Eggshell Skull Plaintiff" Pro Se Litigant, Homeless, aspiring brothel owner

[MarMar049]

Does this mean Zuck is implicated in every fucking Facebook Live "Hey, let's film ourselves doing crime" video? Because that would be a SPICY ruling.

Sorry but rich people aren't required to follow the law like us peasants.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Disagree. Encouraging is part of contributing. The District court held so as well. Speaking of which, so did SCOTUS:
“One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement” - Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005)

Thanks, man. I have only read this decision and did not see that connection made. Still curious why they didn’t sew that up tighter in the decision, but again, could’ve missed it in a phone-skim.

I note, though, that the S.Ct. case you cited includes “intentionally.” Does “intentionally” mean there needs to be an intention that the outcome is infringement/infringement was the goal, or that the actions taken that are deemed “inducing” or “encouraging” only need to be deliberate actions (neutral to outcome)? General vs specific intent, I guess, which I have no idea whether or how that occurs in an infringement case. I guess I could go pull the case… but if you happen to know, I’m curious.

ETA: I saw this: “We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.”

I’m seeing “intent to cause infringement,” along with “clear expression…affirmative steps to foster….”

That’s seems a) much more than what happened here, and b) back to your quoted text, both distinguishable from equating “encouraging” to “materially contributing,” and is missing the “materially,” which could be relevant as well.

No, that's what Bloomberg and Law360 do. They stalk court releases and write articles about almost every case, no matter how stupid and insignificant they are.

They should hire some folks who know what a 12b6 motion is and how to read a decision on one.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

So, my guess is people feel that your question really should never have been asked if you had put 2 + 2 together and this giving you stick for asking it.

Indeed. But I guess asking the bare minimum is too much nowadays.

I note, though, that the S.Ct. case you cited includes “intentionally.” Does “intentionally” mean there needs to be an intention that the outcome is infringement/infringement was the goal, or that the actions taken that are deemed “inducing” or “encouraging” only need to be deliberate actions (neutral to outcome)? General vs specific intent, I guess, which I have no idea whether or how that occurs in an infringement case. I guess I could go pull the case… but if you happen to know, I’m curious.

The difference is Piratebay v TV recorder. One is made to commit copyright infringement, the other is made for you to make a copy of a show you are allowed to watch. This difference is shown in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005) (which would be something akin to Piratebay) and Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 104 S. Ct. 774 (1984) (which would be the latter).

The first was found to be liable for contributory copyright infringement, the other was not.

This is an interesting quote from the second case that speaks as to how difficult it is to achieve intentionality:
“Respondents argue that Kalem stands for the proposition that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement. […]Kalem does not support respondents' novel theory of liability.”

 

[ConSluttant]

ngl getting a supreme court ruling on greer v moon would be kino

We need Ron Coleman on the case. Hmmmmm.

 

[Rent Tin]

When Null wins the case, will he be able to get fees from Greer? I'm down to take a trip to repossess everything he owns if so.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

When Null wins the case, will he be able to get fees from Greer? I'm down to take a trip to repossess everything he owns if so.

Unlikely. I do not believe this case counts as frivolous or filed in bad faith. Certain parts of it were filed with little to no research, but when pointed to their faultiness, he removed them (the harassment claim comes to mind)

 

[GamerGateSurvivor]

I like the way the article implies the farms killing people was a finding by the court and not just something Greer said. Great job media.

>Songwriter targeted by Swifties

Those Swifties sound like awful people. The way they treated him, you'd think he tried to sue his way into their favorite musician's pants several times.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I am disappointed that none of you pointed out that the Judge who wrote the opinion is originally from the Soviet Union. I screencapped it when talking about her being a jew, but it just occurred to me how funny it is that someone from a long dead nation decided to fuck over Null.

 

[Barbarella]

The only solution is for Null to go to law school. It’d be cheaper then trying to pay for these insane suits. We should start a fundraiser to put him through school.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The only solution is for Null to go to law school. It’d be cheaper then trying to pay for these insane suits. We should start a fundraiser to put him through school.

He still couldn’t represent his LLC.

 

[Historical Strelkov]

Unlikely. I do not believe this case counts as frivolous or filed in bad faith. Certain parts of it were filed with little to no research, but when pointed to their faultiness, he removed them (the harassment claim comes to mind)

If Null is responsible for linking to something that Greer didn't file a DMCA request to on google, then what case is there that Null is the one that should pay damages? Is it Null's google drive? Who is responsible the hoster or the poster? If it is incumbent on the defendant to make a fair use case, then is the accusatory party also responsible? Is the Contributory aspect the idea that if you post a link to something that is free copyright, you're the one that has to pay damages? Is that why he's saying "Section 230 must go" with the appeals to emotion? It seems like they're trying to apply a bunch of different ideas to create the outcome that any linking to, or refusal to remove the linking of things to an external host is contributing to copyright infringement. But, if this is the case, why did Null not remove the material like other requests? What did Greer do differently and why's the court letting it proceed?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

If Null is responsible for linking to something that Greer didn't file a DMCA request to on google, then what case is there that Null is the one that should pay damages?

Null is not responsible for Google. Null may be responsible for encouraging other people to steal Greer’s work (appellate court found that by giving Greer all the benefits, this is more or less well plead enough to pass to be ultimately determined by the district court).

Who is responsible the hoster or the poster?

Both can be responsible under different theories of liability (direct v contributory for example)

If it is incumbent on the defendant to make a fair use case, then is the accusatory party also responsible?

No. They are only responsible for their truthful statements to the court.

Is the Contributory aspect the idea that if you post a link to something that is free copyright, you're the one that has to pay damages?

Whatever the fuck “free copyright” means aside, no.

Is that why he's saying "Section 230 must go" with the appeals to emotion?

Nobody in this case, not even Russ, is saying Section 230 must go.

It seems like they're trying to apply a bunch of different ideas to create the outcome that any linking to, or refusal to remove the linking of things to an external host is contributing to copyright infringement.

That is a misread of their position.

But, if this is the case, why did Null not remove the material like other requests? What did Greer do differently and why's the court letting it proceed?

Because Null can’t fucking see the future, and because the appellate court feels Greer satisfied the relaxed burden placed on him. I do not believe they are correct, but alas, I am not in the position to overrule them

 

[Thumb Butler]

Love it when Wikipedia is used in a court of law. "Listen and believe", just like in the Soviet Union.

 

['Ole Dente]

Josh got the .net back, it’s his favorite time of the year, he’s getting all spooky and comfy cozy, trying to make some scratch with a cool merch run. Chris comes back, Ethan’s fucked, Rackets is self imploding, Keffals is getting the big L, Dong Gone is progressively getting more blind, streams are going great……the stars were lining up for you my boy. Inshallah my slobbermutt habibi, the planetary alignment favoured you.

But, as you well know, the other shoe will always drop and not every day can be pizza day.

 

[I'm Retarded?]

You mentioned appeal and now I'm wondering that if this keeps going, Josh will end up before the Supreme Court. Because this isn't even really the end, not yet

it takes an astronomical amount of time, resources, and influence to get a case before the supreme court, way more than one angsty, retarded whoremonger could ever hope to command in his entire life. if Section 230 goes before the altar, it won't be Russ who takes it there, nor anybody on his behalf, no matter how deep their financial interests.

 

[Historical Strelkov]

Sorry @Useful_Mistake I meant "linking someone's copyright, for free".

 

[beepbopisuckcock]

REST IN PEACE
FAIR USE
October 19, 1976 - October 16, 2023​

When Null wins the case,

Looking nearly impossible now. No judge will ever let the heckin evil cyberstalking trans genocide school shooter forum win any case past this point for fear of backlash.

The Kiwifarms has been so successfully defamed the defamation is now being cited by appellate judges. as justification for a lazy "fuck you" ruling that simply cites the cases every law student is forced to read in intro to copyright. Either the lies are challenged forcefully, or this place is going to get buried. Simple as that.

Between this and Comcast fucking us over, I will be shocked if the site makes it to the end of next year. In any case, you better start decking your house with pride flags because these people will no longer show you any mercy.

 

[Breadbassket]

The best American judges are the ones not from America.

 

[WelperHelper99]

it takes an astronomical amount of time, resources, and influence to get a case before the supreme court, way more than one angsty, retarded whoremonger could ever hope to command in his entire life. if Section 230 goes before the altar, it won't be Russ who takes it there, nor anybody on his behalf, no matter how deep their financial interests.

I don't know man, old Russ has managed to surprise me time and time again.

 

[Rent Tin]

REST IN PEACE
FAIR USE
October 19, 1976 - October 16, 2023​

Looking nearly impossible now. No judge will ever let the heckin evil cyberstalking trans genocide school shooter forum win any case past this point for fear of backlash.


Between this and Comcast fucking us over, I will be shocked if the site makes it to the end of next year. In any case, you better start decking your house with pride flags because these people will no longer show you any mercy.

If you literally believe everything is fucked and nothing can get better/you can never win, why don't you just throw yourself off a roof and save everyone else your whining?
Does it suck Null might have to go back to court? Hell yeah. Will we win? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But I know Null has always pulled through for shit, he's the most stubborn son of a gun I've ever heard and I don't expect to go down without a fight.
All the dumb nigger cattle fresh joins that haven't seen any of the shit the forum has gone through in the last five fucking years are getting me MATI.