Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)

[mindlessobserver]

View attachment 5496902

https://archive.is/jU92a

Let’s hope the 10th circuit doesn’t stalk his twitter

I mean, I can make a pretty good moral and ethical argument for why certain people need to be given free rides on helicopters out over the Atlantic Ocean, this doesn't not mean I actually intend to do it, or that I think it's legal.

For now.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I mean, I can make a pretty good moral and ethical argument for why certain people need to be given free rides on helicopters out over the Atlantic Ocean, this doesn't not mean I actually intend to do it, or that I think it's legal.

For now.

I’m just saying that praising piracy (copyright infringement) is probably not a good thing when you are on the hook for contributory copyright infringement. If they see it, it might taint their view on his motion to reconsider

 

[AnOminous]

The Supreme Court will be way more interested in the procedural issue then the copyright issue. That one is the true doozy. If the current ruling stands in thr 10th circuit you are going to have to make an affirmative defense along with also pointing out no claims have been made which require a defense at all.

That's big problem jimbo. Gonna take a big wrench to fix.

If the panel affirms on alternate grounds they might not even get to the procedural issue. I think they probably have to because letting that stand is ridiculous, though, even if they do affirm.

The whole point of an affirmative defense is it's something the defendant has to prove by evidence. You're not allowed to introduce extrinsic evidence in a motion to dismiss (and HAVE NOT HAD DISCOVERY AT THE TIME YOU DO), and doing so results in the trial court converting it to a Motion for Summary Judgment under FRCP 56.

The ruling is essentially you can't file a motion to dismiss in a copyright case without forever waiving a fair use defense at trial or involuntarily having it converted into a pre-discovery Rule 56 motion.

That's derange-o and really, for a Tenth Circuit panel to fuck that up is embarrassing. It's 1L shit.

They all have clerks who just passed the bar where you have to answer all kinds of shit like that.

Now that doesn't mean you'd never raise a fair use defense in a motion to dismiss, but it would almost never be granted unless on the face of the complaint, it's clearly fair use even by the plaintiff's own claims. It really isn't in this case and there would have been no sane reason to argue, on behalf of a pseudonymous third party, a lengthy fair use argument that is likely unavailing anyway.

View attachment 5495551
This is 2007-present.

The 10th circuit isn’t the 9th, but in general it seems like the appeals courts are a joke

SCOTUS doesn't take up an appeal unless four of the Justices agree to it, and if the side of the case they're on isn't likely to win, a minority isn't going to go for it in most cases. So in every one of these cases, at least four and possibly five of the Justices agree there's something to appeal there.

Also in the Ninth Circuit's defense, although it is indeed the most fucked-up circuit, they also hear a lot more cases, a lot more appeals are going to be taken from it, and SCOTUS and the Ninth are always at loggerheads.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

SCOTUS doesn't take up an appeal unless four of the Justices agree to it, and if the side of the case they're on isn't likely to win, a minority isn't going to go for it in most cases. So in every one of these cases, at least four and possibly five of the Justices agree there's something to appeal there.

Yeah, I get how the Supreme Court can cherry pick, but at that, they scoop up 3% of the cases from appeals circuit courts while having 5% (9 vs 179 appeals circuit judgeships) of the number of judges.

When you consider how much spit and polish has to go into their written opinions, and the fact that they’re mostly very elderly, the workload of the Supreme Court is actually impressive for tenured members of the US government.

I think their workload is a choke point limiting the amount of cases they can pick up from the appeals circuits, and if you consider that plus the fact that when they reverse an appeals court it’s actually reverting to a decision that a lower federal court had already made, and that they reverse 2/3rds of the cases they take, that it is fairly indicative of some judicial imprudence on the appeals circuits.

 

[AnOminous]

I think their workload is a choke point limiting the amount of cases they can pick up from the appeals circuits, and if you consider that plus the fact that when they reverse an appeals court it’s actually reverting to a decision that a lower federal court had already made, and that they reverse 2/3rds of the cases they take, that it is fairly indicative of some judicial imprudence on the appeals circuits.

I disagree because the very rules that lead to them only taking up a tiny fraction of the cases they have appellate jurisdiction over mean they're overwhelmingly taking up cases they intend to reverse.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

I disagree because the very rules that lead to them only taking up a tiny fraction of the cases they have appellate jurisdiction over mean they're overwhelmingly taking up cases they intend to reverse.

I disagree because the very rules that lead to them only taking up a tiny fraction of the cases they have appellate jurisdiction over mean they're overwhelmingly taking up cases they intend to reverse.

You seem to be pretty knowledgeable, and without trying to witch hunt anyone’s background, I assume you have some legal experience in yours, so I’ll take your word on it

 

[AnOminous]

You seem to be pretty knowledgeable, and without trying to witch hunt anyone’s background, I assume you have some legal experience in yours, so I’ll take your word on it

The specific figure of cert. petitions that are granted is 1%. Now, that's somewhat distorted by the flood of petitions from kooks and loons, since the percentage is 4% for paid petitions, that is, where the person appealing is actually paying a lawyer to draft the petition. Naturally, with the expense of proceeding on that level and the number of attorneys likely to draft a successful petition being limited, people are generally going to give up at the Circuit Court level, if they didn't give up at the trial court level.

So of all the Circuit-level appellate decisions, the percentage appealed from is low, and the number granted is minuscule. There's a serious sifting going on there, as nobody is going to spend enough to appeal to SCOTUS if they don't think they have a chance, and even then, 96% of those are curtly denied without a hearing.

That means the vast majority of their decisions are, if not entirely correct, at least not incorrect enough to interest SCOTUS, so it's somewhat surprising as many are affirmed as there are. I assume in some of those cases, SCOTUS took it up because they liked the appeals court's reasoning enough to make it the law of the land.

And while the (fairly) maligned Ninth has the worst record, even the vast majority of theirs aren't overturned.

(Source on the stat: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/...re-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/ and yes they know what they're talking about over there.)

 

[WhiteNight]

Today was the day. Did Greer file a response?

I'm hoping for a legal brief arguing that Google Drive is in fact hosted here, and therefore Google servers are under the protection of KiwiFlare.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Three minutes before the deadline, Russ finally responded

 

[teriyakiburns]

Today was the day. Did Greer file a response?

I'm hoping for a legal brief arguing that Google Drive is in fact hosted here, and therefore Google servers are under the protection of KiwiFlare.

That does, in fact, appear to be very close to their argument. It's a link to a file, so it's actually hosted here rather than merely linked.

 

[Piggle Rick]

“Here’s what Groker says:”

Faggots can’t even spell Grokster.

Why aren’t they suing Google, who are the ones hosting the files? Oh yeah, b/c they know Google would fuck them in the ass with money and influence.

 

[TingoFranDingo]

Here, a website operator...
It deliberately refused...
It expressly waived...
Then, it taunted...

Kinda agitating that they refer to Null as an 'it'.
A part of me would want to respond in-kind in the future.

 

[Imagine Reading This LOL]

Its so over Kiwibros, the mp3 was posted directly on the site

How can Null possibly win?

 

[WhiteNight]

The autist in me was triggered on the first page:

Why is the DJF in small caps on the right but not on the left?

Why aren’t they suing Google, who are the ones hosting the files? Oh yeah, b/c they know Google would fuck them in the ass with money and influence.

I expect Google generally complies with DMCA requests. They don't care about deleting free content from random accounts.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

The autist in me was triggered on the first page:
View attachment 5503219
Why is the DJF in small caps on the right but not on the left?

People in Omaha are generally hard of hearing due to the Air Base there and all of Peyton Manning's shouting.

 

[Artificial Stupidity]

Looking through the pdf they're saying a link to a gdrive is somehow kiwifarms fault? It's not even hosted on kf?
Also judging by the small caps it's easy to see where Andrew has written in the response due to this formatting.
It's also inconsistent throughout the response so anything with small caps I would say is Andrew's input.

 

[Null]

the two main points I see him raise that might work are:

• no really direct links are copyright infringement even though the supreme court said otherwise, and
• if not, fuck it, this guy and his website are dicks and so this case is unique just let us win please nobody will notice

 

[wrangled tard]

Perhaps I'm a retard but why did they hinge so much of this on the usage of the word encourage? Their only argument that seems to have had effort put into and has citations of precedent is against a point that wasn't made. The original ruling was made due to the combination of Josh refusing to take down the """infringing""" material and reposting the take down notice, both of which are legal actions. The argument wasn't against whether or not encouragement of copyright infringement counts as copyright infringement, which Greer and his retarded lawyer are arguing is the case, it's arguing that what Josh did isn't encouraging copyright infringement and is inline with a standard practise in the tech industry. This nigga really read some unrelated article instead of the petition, what a retard.

 

[Null]

A lot of this feels like it's insisting something that didn't happen in order to try and meet a standard that the courts are looking for. I've by no means encouraged anyone to do anything that compromises someone's rights and have explained in detail how to share clips and images while meeting a burden of fair use.

A lot of this also feels like it's really stressing I'm mean and it's OK to fuck me over.

I'm still optimistic about en banc.

 

[Kosher Salt]

That means the vast majority of their decisions are, if not entirely correct, at least not incorrect enough to interest SCOTUS, so it's somewhat surprising as many are affirmed as there are. I assume in some of those cases, SCOTUS took it up because they liked the appeals court's reasoning enough to make it the law of the land.

Some of the cases they take could also be because there's a circuit split on it, so they take an appeal for a case that they feel will make good precedent even if they agree with the appellate court's ruling.