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

[.iota.]

This was work for free right?
If not Error are not acceptable, those fuckers get paid hundred of $ per hour.

i believe that this was paid for with the litigation fund. regardless, while i agree that there ought not be any errors in a petition to the ussc, the errors to which i'm referring are fairly insignificant, thus easily forgiven by the court.

If this goes ahead either the 10th circuit decision gets rejected by the SC and the mediacorpos have to go back to the drawing board, or it becomes the law of the land and everyone gets thrown in the shitbucket along with KF.

I hope this gets cert just so Google, Cloudflare, and all the other shitty tech companies have to file amicus briefs in support of the farms. They don't like us, but this dumb decision is a potential business risk for search engines and other internet services.

none of those companies will do that. not a single one of them will risk the wrath of the twitteratti to defend the farms, even if doing so would be in their own best interest. even the eff, which allegedly exists solely to defend "digital privacy, free speech, and innovation" was incredibly weak in its defense against cloudflare's decision to drop us, and has refused to engage with us since. if the tenth circuit's decision stands, and hardin's assertion is correct, the eff will likely be one of the first to be "thrown in the shitbucket along with kf", and rightfully so for not standing with us.

from page 31:

 

[MadStan]

This is very interesting. Am I getting the understanding of this:

If Question 3 is not addressed by the SC and deemed that the 10th circuit decision stands, the implication is vast for a swath of tech companies. I mean, this would mean any link given would have to seek permission for posting, and if no such permission was ever sought or granted thereafter, the default position of the decision made conclusively benefits the owner of the copyright's materials to be capable of having it struck down.

So how does a company like twitter operate in an environment like this?

 

[themarchivist2]

Holy shit. What sort of timetable are we looking at here? How long do these usually take to get a response, and if by some freak chance it's accepted, how long until the court hears it?

 

[Null]

Holy shit. What sort of timetable are we looking at here? How long do these usually take to get a response, and if by some freak chance it's accepted, how long until the court hears it?

Two months.

 

[BIG BILL HELL'S]

Sometimes you just have to double down before you roll a hard 8.

Sometimes you just have to double down and roll with a hard 'r'.

 

[Day of the Cope]

Hey, null, when SCOTUS gives you the death penalty, try and act surprised, okay?

 

[Harvey Danger]

Hardin's petition already has everything an amicus brief would have anyway.

I think it still needs some backup from other sites and creators getting crushed by copyright notices.

Spoiler: a very mild critique

I don't know if it was edited for length, but the bits in the petition talking about ISPs increasing their monopoly power could be fleshed out. I understand the point, and so does anyone else steeped in takedown BS since the Adpocalypse. We're already familiar with the scale, technological limitations, and failed automated systems that underpin the problem.

But all of that isn't readily apparent in the petition itself. Footnotes 3, 4, & 5 shows large platforms dumping millions into copyright regulating systems, but it doesn't link the volume problem to smaller providers. A justice might reasonably assume a smaller platform has fewer takedowns aimed at them, and might ask what's so hard about complying with a single takedown notice. They don't know about the scrapers, the automated notice senders, the spamming OnlyFans "lawyers", the foreign governmental entities, etc.

The assertion that the 10th's ruling's framework will increase monopolization, requires them to first believe the monopoly exists. There's no theory of the concentrated Internet referenced here, we can't assume normie-tier judges understand the problem. It says larger businesses are "more capable of shouldering the resultingly higher compliance costs", which is true, but that hasn't stopped them from passing everything from Sarbannes-Oxley to Covid mandates.

I don't think this is the crucial aspect of Hardin's overall argument. But it really could use some supporting briefs to show the monopolization of content platforms, the high cost of compliance, and the absolute broken state of the DMCA regimes across multiple sites.

As already stated, amicus briefs would come later, not now. Might be nice to draw up a list of potential contributors though, just in case.

 

[Not At All A Lizard]

I did also like the inclusion of that Rachel Madcow case as a reference to show that even the silliest lefties are actually on our side.

 

[a hapless toad]

Hey @AnOminous, since the thread has been featured again, could you update the OP when you get a chance?

 

[MadStan]

If they don’t hear the case; then it’s time to copyright everything on KF that is quoted on any Reddit forum and sue Reddit for copyright infringement. Or even sue google for linking to it. This could go nuts. If they don’t hear this case then they’ll have to hear a cleaner case on it to clarify.

 

[Poop Shoot]

Russ: “I wish to be famous”

Monkey’s paw closes a finger

 

[Fake Steve Franssen]

Josh has petitioned SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari over the appellate decision.

Spoiler: Full petition as .JPG

View attachment 5769640View attachment 5769641View attachment 5769643View attachment 5769644View attachment 5769645View attachment 5769646View attachment 5769648View attachment 5769649View attachment 5769650View attachment 5769652View attachment 5769653View attachment 5769654View attachment 5769656View attachment 5769657View attachment 5769658View attachment 5769659View attachment 5769660View attachment 5769661View attachment 5769662View attachment 5769663View attachment 5769665View attachment 5769666View attachment 5769667View attachment 5769668View attachment 5769669View attachment 5769670View attachment 5769671View attachment 5769672View attachment 5769673View attachment 5769674View attachment 5769675View attachment 5769676View attachment 5769677View attachment 5769678View attachment 5769679View attachment 5769680View attachment 5769681View attachment 5769682View attachment 5769683View attachment 5769684View attachment 5769685View attachment 5769686View attachment 5769687

This looks pretty serious, huh? To help Kiwi Farms improve its odds of winning, I hereby apologize to Ketanji Brown Jackson for calling her a "nigger" on countless occasions on the Internet.

The apology might be for nothing since only a small percentage of cases are heard by the Supreme Court.

 

[make_it_so]

But what suit size will you buy, fat boy?

"Josh probably doesn't even own a suit" *smugly chuckles*

 

[whatever I feel like]

Russ: “I wish to be famous”

Monkey’s paw closes a finger

I want everyone to hear my soooooong!

 

[DavidS877]

View attachment 5770597
"Josh probably doesn't even own a suit" *smugly chuckles*

I assume he has a formal tracksuit based on where he lives.

 

[Magnificent Penis]

Maybe I'm retarded but, isn't the implication in all of this that all the Kiwi Farms enemies, who are without doubt also lip servicers of the "free (i)nternet" and against big corporations and copyright trolls, would have to choose between begrudgingly supporting Null or admit that they are big fat hypocrytes who are willing to drop all their supposed values just because they do not like the guy who is trying to defend them? How would one conciliate their religious "fuck Null and the Kiwi Farms I hope they lose forever" with "copyright trolls are evil and we must not empower them" without using literal doublethink?

 

[mindlessobserver]

Holy shit. What sort of timetable are we looking at here? How long do these usually take to get a response, and if by some freak chance it's accepted, how long until the court hears it?

Russell has 30 days to respond if he wants(he doesn't have too, but it would be funny if he does). After that the court will determine if it wants to hear the case. If Cert is granted, the case will be docketed for the next judicial season, which runs from October 2024 to June 2025. The case would then be heard at any time in that period, with a ruling released in the Summer or early autumn of 2025.


I figure this is a good time to hype an excellent movie that you can watch for free if you are curious about how the SCOTUS works.

Gideons Trumpet.

Overly dramatized to be sure, but it's a good watch nonetheless.

 

[Ted Kaczynski]

No cameras allowed in the SCOTUS under any circumstances, I believe. I wish we could see that event, however.

I will be present and my penis camera will not be confiscated.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I've always wanted to see a Supreme Court hearing. Admission is free and open to the public, you just gotta get in line before everyone else. If cert is granted I will most definitely go

 

[KiwiSuperPowerUser]

Am I the only one worried for Null just on the judge? She has a very interesting background though it being sort of vague.

Marilyn Bernie "Tena" Gresky Campbell (born December 11, 1944) is an American jurist, lawyer, and former school teacher. She is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

She began her career as a school teacher.[1] She taught French at a high school level in Twin Falls, Idaho from 1967 to 1969 and taught the same subject at Tempe High School in Tempe, Arizona from 1972 to 1973.[1] She taught French in evening classes at Phoenix Junior College in Phoenix, Arizona from 1972 to 1973.
She was in private practice in Salt Lake City, Utah from 1977 to 1981, and then entered public service, becoming a Deputy county attorney in the Salt Lake County Attorney's Office, Utah in 1981. Later that year, she became an Assistant United States Attorney in Salt Lake City, a position she held until 1995.

Federal judicial service On June 22, 1995, Campbell was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Utah vacated by Bruce Sterling Jenkins. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 30, 1995, and received her commission the same day. She served as chief judge from 2006 to 2011. She assumed senior status on January 1, 2011.

https://www.courtlistener.com/person/524/tena-campbell/

She's being serving for longer than I've been Alive. And if you look at her past cases she seems to vote in term post people consider "woke"