- Joined
- Feb 11, 2017
Russell is not going to win unless Null's lawyer literally does not show up to court. Russell himself accidentally admitted the infringing content isn't even hosted here.
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
- Thread starter Cryin RN
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
Phoned-in metaphorically. He seemed to half-ass it and was on his back foot the whole time he was speaking.
At least that's how I saw it. Skordas probably knows more than me, so who am I to criticize?
Jew-ish
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2021
I think Greers lawyers are playing the game of using Kiwifarms infamy to garnish headlines, which does more for their cause than representing a gimpface retard. Fighting for copyright holders doesn't hold a candle to fighting against murderous internet bullies.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2021
I can't say this bullshit comes as any surprise tbh, the fucking 10th Circuit is by all accounts comprised of woke faggot Democrat tools either Obama or Biden (so Obama) appointees put their to try to legitimize ideological faggotry.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2021
I will never stop mocking him, because he will never stop doing dumb shit.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2018
He's now claiming contributory copyright infringement. Because Null refuses to delete the link to the infringing content, Russell is saying Null is contributing to copyright infringement and is thus liable. As smarter people than me have said, Null doesn't meet the criteria for either passive or active contributory copyright infringement, and a proper legal argument will get this case ruled in Null's favor again.
It'll be funny if Russ gets BTFO'd by the same judge as before.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
And I doubt he has any recommendations from any of the places he actually did work, because he was fired for misconduct or creeping from every one.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2020
And quite often over the last few years whined about not getting hired at a law firm. His reputation is shit and he is a walking lawsuit.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
He's seeking statutory damages so the minimum on that is $750 per infringement. Often fees shift but there were none at the trial court level. Possibly the appellate shysters could seek their fees if he ultimately wins.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
In regards to why they may think google drive means directly here is a lot of people in law and such know nothing of how the internet works. They lack of knowledge about internet things is insane in the genersl population.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
They declined to address the only legal issue that was really interesting in a footnote.
"12 The parties debate the meaning and applicability of the Ninth Circuit’s test for contributory infringement, as expressed in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) and A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). Mr. Greer argues the district court erred in refusing to follow persuasive authority from a sister circuit and expressly urges this court to adopt the Perfect 10/Napster test. Appellant Br. at 32–34. Because we conclude the issue is resolved under controlling precedent in this circuit—including Grokster and Diversey—we express no view of the Ninth Circuit’s contributory infringement framework."
I think that might have been the actual legal issue that interested them.
"12 The parties debate the meaning and applicability of the Ninth Circuit’s test for contributory infringement, as expressed in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) and A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). Mr. Greer argues the district court erred in refusing to follow persuasive authority from a sister circuit and expressly urges this court to adopt the Perfect 10/Napster test. Appellant Br. at 32–34. Because we conclude the issue is resolved under controlling precedent in this circuit—including Grokster and Diversey—we express no view of the Ninth Circuit’s contributory infringement framework."
I think that might have been the actual legal issue that interested them.
Exercise4Reader
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2023
And a lot of people are clearly having trouble understanding the filing. As everyone keeps explaining in this thread, the complaint is that Null should have removed the links from KF to Google Drive, where Russell's copyrighted content was hosted. Russell is the main reason I read Kiwi Farms, and him failing at life brings me unspeakable joy, but he's still entitled to basic copyright protections.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
He's specifically seeking statutory damages for willful infringement which if he fails to prove would bump the minimum down to $200 per infringement.
Technically they did address it by not following the 9th circuit pathway. By the mere action of holding that "merely permitting the infringing material to remain on the website" is insufficient for contributory copyright infringement, they by necessity rejected the 9th circuit version which hold that it is, indeed, sufficient.
That's not what the court said.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2019
More likely trying to find a foothold for similar future cases. Imagine suing reddit because some subreddits have links to file-sharing sites with infringing content. That's how far this could go if they can squeak out a win.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2018
Of course some Obama/Biden judges would make this kind of stupid ruling. I just hope that eventually this case ends up being presided by someone with some sense, so that Null and the Kiwi Farms more broadly doesn't have to deal with this shit anymore.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2020
Now I could be wrong here, but my understanding is that "per infringement" means per link shared. I'm also making the assumption that the court would take into consideration the asking price for a copy of the book, which is $2.99 as at the time of posting this. (A)
Unless I'm misremembering, there were only around 300 or so downloads of the book, so it's not like he's lost out on millions of sales. On this basis I'll assume the Court - if they rule in Russhole's favor - would impose the minimum penalty per infringement viz. $200.
(yes I'm aware that there's more than one claim, but I'm just focusing on the book as my point stands irrespective of how many infringements there are and I can't be arsed going back through the filings rn)
Actual provable damages (assuming 300 downloads at $2.99) would be around $900.
On one hand, Russhole could try hitting Null up for a settlement. Russ could still claim it as a W even though technically speaking it isn't. However I don't think Russhole wants anything less than TKFD, hence he'll take this back into the Court system as far as he can take it. That, and Null will never give an inch. Not even a thousandth of an inch. Especially not to a gimpy mush-mouthed retard that's cost him thousands of dollars in legal fees.
IMHO the biggest worry is that if Null were to lose, this opens up a massive Pandora's box of potential litigation. Such a decision would be a great big piping hot stream of liquified feces on the tenet of fair use, expelled with such force that some of the splatter may end up hitting Section 230 in the process.
Without wanting to sound like one of those histrionic faggots that's been shitting up the thread since it was featured, this could have ramifications for the entire Internet.
Or maybe I'm just being a histrionic faggot.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2019
A copyright troll lawfirm took the case pro Bono. Not hard to figure out the cui Bono in this situation.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
If it's per link shared, and we count Null reposting Greer's DMCA as a "share" that'd be one share, not 300. Russ himself contends there are two infringements, and that at the maximum possible statutory relief, he should get 300k.
They tried while it was in appeals. Neither party was willing to settle, IIRC.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2018
