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

When will the Judge issue a ruling regarding the Motion to Dismiss?

  • This Month

    Votes: 67 14.4%

  • Next Month

    Votes: 56 12.0%

  • This Year

    Votes: 73 15.7%

  • Next Year

    Votes: 156 33.5%

  • Whenever he issues an update to the sanctions

    Votes: 113 24.3%
  • Total voters
    465
Betonhaus said:
It would be interesting to see if there's a clear pattern for what gets accepted and what doesn't. The Texas lawsuit against Georgia for voter fraud was rejected so it'll be funny if the Kiwifarms lawsuit gets accepted.
Click to expand...
Yeah wow, the idea that a case might actually require legal merit to be considered, how very novel...


Anyways, if Russ doesn't counter KF's claims do we get a default victory or what? With the bad precedent still standing, though?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpiceyHuman
BULLY HUNTER_78 said:
I don't get it. Isn't this some sort of nominal letter that they send every petitioner? Did Null somehow win the 1% chance gamba sesh?
Click to expand...
Any court involved in the case is notified when it is docketed. That's all. The actual cert decision(if they'll hear the case) has not been made, and won't be for a while(1-3 months).
 
  • Informative
  • Optimistic
  • Like
Reactions: Himedall All-seeing Waifu, SpiceyHuman, KingPenguin120 and 4 others
BULLY HUNTER_78 said:
I don't get it. Isn't this some sort of nominal letter that they send every petitioner? Did Null somehow win the 1% chance gamba sesh?
Click to expand...
No, this is standard practice. What it can mean however is the district Court, being informed that a request for Cert has been made, can decide that it doesn't have to deal with the monumental pile of crap that has been dumped on the file in the past weeks and can put off doing anything for the next few months

They don't have too though. Guess we shall see.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Himedall All-seeing Waifu, Broken Cuddles, Last Ride and 10 others
hamsteak said:
Pardon my ignorance. But, this just a letter saying this case was brought up to them or does it mean something more?
Click to expand...
by itself it doesn't mean anything, just that the district court has officially been made aware that the appeals court decision has been submitted to the supreme court by hardin.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: not william stenchever, Not a bee, Sexy Senior Citizen and 1 other person
StinkySnack said:
For real. What is wrong with all of these people, and when are they going to back to where they came from?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the curse of being featured. If you get featured, you really ought to go back to the featured post and add a FAQ which the faqqots won't read, but makes it even easier to make fun of them.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Himedall All-seeing Waifu, Moths, Tismguide and 8 others
The cert petition got posted to /r/supremecourt. For some background on the subreddit, there is a subreddit called /r/SCOTUS that is about the supreme court, but the mods being reddit mods turned the subreddit into another version of /r/politics filled with low quality articles and they banned conservative/originalist viewpoints as well. /r/supremecourt was created by a bunch of banned users and by others who disagree with that subreddit's moderation. /r/supremecourt generally has much higher quality legal discussions than the rest of reddit, but it does have a bit of a conservative/originalist bias

 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: gmax alcremie, Himedall All-seeing Waifu, The Howlers of Mars and 21 others
Turbulence said:
The cert petition got posted to /r/supremecourt. For some background on the subreddit, there is a subreddit called /r/SCOTUS that is about the supreme court, but the mods being reddit mods turned the subreddit into another version of /r/politics filled with low quality articles and they banned conservative/originalist viewpoints as well. /r/supremecourt was created by a bunch of banned users and by others who disagree with that subreddit's moderation. /r/supremecourt generally has much higher quality legal discussions than the rest of reddit, but it does have a bit of a conservative/originalist bias

Click to expand...
The discussion is mainly asking why Kiwifarms didn't remove the link, with questions like these:

>I'm all for piracy, but couldn't he just remove the link?

>Kiwi refused to remove links to the google drive, which is the contention here. Twitter for example cannot claim immunity if they don't remove google drive links to pirated movies merely because they're google drive links and not uploaded directly.

>Sounds a lot like the original Napster. The files were never hosted on Napsters site. Napster was sued by 18 different record companies, all of which were members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
I beleive the court ruled it was contributory copyright infringement. This case was in the 9th Circuit.

I know fuck all about this, but doesn't Null argue that it's already a Supreme Court decision that links to infringing material is not against copyright? That would make either this sub very wrong, or Null
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Moths, Not a bee and Richard Cheese
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back