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

[Null]

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

yes. it has been established case law for over a decade. reddit is retarded.

 

[GaryGray]

Interesting only one comment thinks it will get reversed. This comment made me chuckle.

I don't think this will be granted, not just because it doesn't seem necessarily cert-worthy but also because of the posture. If the Court were going to take up a case like this I think it'd be after summary judgment or even a trial (if one happens), especially because of how fact-bound it seems like the lower court's judgment is. Plaintiff has "alleged facts" enough to state a claim according to the Tenth Circuit, but whether these facts stand up to scrutiny remains to be seen. ( jokiboi)

Of course the Supreme Court is know well for deciding its cases based on nebulous factors like posture. Also a case so fact bound it didn't even follow procedure.

 

[teriyakiburns]

reddit is retarded.

I feel this cannot be stated often enough.

 

[Napoleon III]

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/1b8yjt7/cert_petition_challenging_joshua_moon_and_kiwi/

there was one interesting post in that reddit thread saying that the case probably won't make it to oral arguments but suggesting that the court might issue a Summary reversal.

A Summary reversal is when the court grants cert and issues a ruling without hearing any Oral arguments. This is a much quicker process.

Based on the 5 minutes of google research I did the Supreme court does this when the facts of the case are not that interesting in terms of constitutional precedent or precedent in general but a circuit court has made a really stupid decision.

I didn't know the court could do this and the fact that this exists makes me think it is more likely something might happen. Maybe I'm just being optimistic though.

 

[Irene and 22 others]

The funniest outcome is if the Supreme Court grants cert but Null ultimately loses due to hundreds of amicus briefs filed in support of Greer by Kiwi Farms users who are upset that Null took away their stickies.

 

[hamsteak]

The discussion is mainly asking why Kiwifarms didn't remove the link

Why the fuck should he (or any website) have to? It seems like the thing you would want to go after is the apparent source of infringement. Even if the link was taken down, what's to stop someone from just posting it again somewhere else. Seems like an awful easy way for some bad actors to royally fuck a website by posting links to torrents constantly and then suing the owners for "contributing to infringement" and I thought the DMCA process was in place to take care of situations like this anyway! Null is right, copyright laws are gay and should be abolished.

 

[Betonhaus]

The funniest outcome is if the Supreme Court grants cert but Null ultimately loses due to hundreds of amicus briefs filed in support of Greer by Kiwi Farms users who are upset that Null took away their stickies.

That sounds expensive

 

[DavidS877]

That sounds expensive

There is no price too high for our stickers.

 

[Betonhaus]

There is no price too high for our stickers.

Even having our legal name on a public record?

 

[DavidS877]

Even having our legal name on a public record?

What, you didn't start an LLC with hidden ownership so your lawyer can send it in with the name of "Shitposters-R-Us LLC"? Probably too late now.

 

[Hamstirer]

There is no price too high for our stickers.

O God, is this Josh's way of rolling out kiwi gold awards?.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

News is writing about Null's SCOTUS petition

Bloomberg Law (paywalled):

https://archive.ph/QP5oj

BNN breaking news (also known as the People's Network) (not paywalled):

https://archive.ph/10DrA

 

[Vect]

News is writing about Null's SCOTUS petition

Probably the most rationally worded headlines I've ever seen about the site.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Actually, I missed one from Law360. Partially paywalled (bypassable with a free account creation)

https://www.law360.com/articles/1810177/trolling-web-forum-takes-copyright-feud-to-high-court

Spoiler: the article

This private information is unavailable to guests due to policies enforced by third-parties.

 

[MunsterCheeseJr]

"Trolling Web Forum"? That is literally one thing this place isn't. The "no fucking with the cows" rule prevents that.

 

[Twinkie]

longtime blogger and Kiwi Farms founder Joshua Moon

Calling everyone online "bloggers" is such an endearing boomerism

 

[Mouse Cop]

News is writing about Null's SCOTUS petition

Do we think that this press coverage makes it more likely or less likely that the SCOTUS will actually review the case?

 

[Vect]

Actually, I missed one from Law360

I guess if we've already caused suicides, school shootings and terrorist attacks, it's perfectly reasonable that we'd eventually escalate all the way to full blown copyright infringement!!

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Do we think that this press coverage makes it more likely or less likely that the SCOTUS will actually review the case?

I'm not sure SCOTUS will be reading that, tbh. That said, its interesting that Law360 points out that 10th Circuit ruled the way they did because of bad press against Null. That's exactly how Null read their decision too.

 

[DavidS877]

Do we think that this press coverage makes it more likely or less likely that the SCOTUS will actually review the case?

They're unlikely to be swayed by the press. But the press noticing it means it's at least interesting enough for them to write about, so maybe it's interesting enough for the court to take up.