They're trying to make the distinction between "link to a site" and "link to a file", while glossing over that it's still a link to an external server in both cases. It's always this sort of nitpicking bullshit that they use to salami-slice away legal protections. If they get this precedent established, then they can expand it to include links to pages where links to infringing files reside, or links to torrent files, or links to hosting sites like youtube.
why would this matter? Nobody is disagreeing that there was an original infringement, only merely that you did not contribute to it.
Because the court opinion relied on that word.
Me too. Here’s to hope.
They also draw attention that at some point the book was directly posted to forum (though it no longer is) ignoring the fact that Russ never asked Null to remove it, or even knew about it (see OP). Russ focused his entire lower and appellate case focusing on the google drive version (the file itself bearing only a passing mention and a screenshot) and the music video, hence this is what Hardin addressed (though the latter in complaining about misapplied caselaw)
They're pretending that the petition is making an argument that encouragement doesn't contribute to copyright infringement when instead some random article about kiwifarms that is entirely detached from the case makes that argument and they're arguing against that. It's not even a strawman, it's arguing against a completely irrelevant point.
It doesn’t, because that’s the wrong test. Hardin did say that
Hardin brought it up as a notice that the case is causing horrible ripples through the law world.
They addressed both (via addressing the article). Their citations are incorrect because they are talking about a different standard of secondary copyright liability.
Since the petition devotes several pages to arguing that en banc review is not warranted, Greer's lawyers apparently don't see acceptance as foregone. If they're right, that's another escape hatch the court could use: yes the decision may not be perfect, but the flaws don't meet the threshold for en banc review, so the ruling stands.
That part was baffling. Is the argument really that linking to a "file-sharing website" can only mean linking to (say) the drive.google.com or dropbox.com home page?
If this argument prevails and the judges explicitly say they’re refusing the en banc because you’re a meanie poopoo head, do you plan to lean into the Samson option?
I wonder if they got some help with this because it isn't as crude and sloppy as their previous filings.
That's nonsense. The DMCA doesn't apply to the two (presumably) infringing posts they cited, which aren't on the site any more even without Null having been notified at all about them.
Yes that is what I am saying, they are responding to the article, not the arguments laid forth in the request for En Banc.
They were in evidence. Here's the book pdf screencap on the district level. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.121906/gov.uscourts.utd.121906.3.29.pdf
They did respond to it, though, by doubling down and insisting both the author and Hardin were incorrect for the same reasons. Maybe that's just me being pedantic, though.
Literally the OP
No, I don't believe so.
I think the fact they brought in new arguments should open it up again, or give rise to cause for a motion to strike since Null never had a chance to respond to this new bullshit. Also it's pretty deceptive not to mention the total lack of notice as to these other documents or any indication as to how long they were even up.
Oh, yes, the smart thing to do in a trial is to outsource your legal argument (dumbed down no less) to two randos. That aside, I haven't the fucking faintest of what this evidence would be. Rule 402 of Federal Rules of Evidence does not allow irrelevant evidence. This "evidence" would be irrelevant. Literally, what would this actually prove? That an ex-staff member and a current staff member thinks that Null has a case? One, no fucking shit, and two, it has literally no relevance to whether or not Null materially contributed to infringement, nor any relevance to whether Null did so intentionally if he did.
Yes, and my post addressed your first half, the part I wanted to address. As for everything else, the OP makes Null's stance clear, and likewise points out issues with the Appellate Opinion.
In a fair world it should, but I don't believe Null will ask the court for permission to respond
This. I was reading it and they're literally just saying "well, it was a link to a file. Not like, a link to a website with a link to a file. So clearly this is hosted here."
Unironically, just skip any paragraph mentioning DMCA because that is just retarded schizophrenic nonsense. Here's a tldr:
