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

reptile baht spaniard rid said:

Where fucking AI falls in that spectrum is anyone's guess. I suppose the Supremes will rule on it in 2103

Click to expand...

reptile baht spaniard rid said:

Where fucking AI falls in that spectrum is anyone's guess.

Click to expand...

John Andrews Stan said:

Anyone using AI for legal filings needs to be extremely cautious and thoroughly check all their citations. I’m tangentially involved in a case where the pro se party (not on my side, I hasten to add) cited a bunch of cases that don’t even exist, blamed a “legal tool,” then did it again. Sanctions came down swiftly and severely. Judges aren’t playing around with these AI shenanigans.

Click to expand...

Bogliacci said:

Good thing for Greee the Judges just decide what his arguments mean after the fact and ignore any and all citations.

Click to expand...

TurboNAS said:

Sure. Proving it happened is probably expensive and not likely unless Greer says it in a filing.

Click to expand...

WTBOnlineFather said:

Wildly optimistic take IMO. Crusty is probably all giddy that he gets to waste more of Jersh's money (through wasting Hardin's time) with plausibly realistic AI-authored argumentation rather than his usual obvious bullshit which is easily slapped down and often sanctionable.

Click to expand...

HTTP Error 404 said:

can Hardin point out the use of AI and see if that pisses the judge off enough to do something? I've heard they don't take kindly to robots stealin' their jarbs.

Click to expand...

Harvey Danger said:

I don't know what AI he's using under which subscription, but eventually it'll cost tokens, and cheapskate Russ won't shell out cash for every filing. He won't even pay the $20 for documents he's required to fetch.

Click to expand...

Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment is a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning an internet service provider's (ISP) liability for users' copyright infringement. Music labels, including Sony, sued Cox, alleging the ISP failed to adequately address subscribers' repeated unauthorized downloading of copyrighted music. A jury awarded Sony $1 billion, but a lower court overturned the vicarious liability verdict. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in its October 2025 term to decide the extent of an ISP's contributory liability for piracy and whether knowledge of infringement is enough to establish willfulness.

Background of the Case

• Music Industry Lawsuits:
  In 2018, Sony and other music industry groups filed lawsuits against Cox, accusing them of facilitating copyright infringement.
  
  
• Jury Verdict:
  A jury found Cox liable for both vicarious and contributory copyright infringement and awarded Sony $1 billion in damages.
  
  
• Appeals Court Ruling:
  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the vicarious liability verdict, ruling Cox wasn't liable on that theory. However, the court left the contributory infringement verdict intact and remanded the case for a new trial on damages.
  

Key Legal Questions for the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court will decide two primary questions:

1. Contributory Infringement:
   Can an ISP be held contributorily liable for copyright infringement merely for knowing that customers are infringing and failing to terminate their access, without proof that the ISP affirmatively fostered or intended to promote the infringement?
2. Willful Infringement:
   Can mere knowledge of another's direct infringement be sufficient to establish "willfulness" under the Copyright Act?

Implications of the Case
The Supreme Court's decision is expected to have significant consequences for ISPs and music copyright holders:

• ISP Liability:
  The ruling will clarify the scope of secondary liability for ISPs, potentially impacting how they manage their networks and respond to copyright infringement complaints.
  
  
• Internet Access:
  A broad ruling could lead to more aggressive policing of users' internet activity, potentially affecting privacy, internet access, and the functionality of community networks.
  
  
• Copyright Enforcement:
  The case could reshape the future of copyright litigation, particularly concerning the ability of content owners to hold ISPs accountable for user piracy.

Click to expand...

The Sony v. Cox case directly relates to Greer v. Moon because the defendants in Greer cited the Sony v. Cox litigation to argue for a narrow interpretation of contributory copyright infringement. Both cases involve the question of secondary liability for copyright infringement by an internet platform.

Case summary: Sony v. Cox

• Parties: Sony Music Entertainment (and other record labels) versus internet service provider (ISP) Cox Communications.
• Facts: The music labels sued Cox for contributory copyright infringement, alleging that Cox was aware that its subscribers were repeatedly infringing copyrights on its network but did not take sufficient action to stop them. A jury found Cox liable. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the finding of contributory infringement. Cox appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
• Issue: The case addresses when an internet service provider can be held liable for the infringing activities of its users and what level of "knowledge" is required for liability.

Case summary: Greer v. Moon

• Parties: Plaintiff Russell Greer versus Joshua Moon and the website Kiwi Farms.
• Facts: Greer, a copyright holder, sent a takedown notice to Kiwi Farms after discovering his book and song on the website. After Moon refused, Greer sued, alleging contributory copyright infringement. A lower court initially dismissed the case, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded it, finding that Greer had plausibly alleged that Moon had "materially contributed" to the infringement by refusing to remove the content and then mocking the takedown notice.
• Issue: The case, like Sony v. Cox, examines what constitutes "material contribution" for contributory copyright infringement in the context of an online platform.

The connection between the two cases
The link between the two cases was explicitly made in the Greer v. Moon litigation when the defendants filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the Supreme Court in the Cox v. Sony case. In the brief, Joshua Moon and the United States Internet Preservation Society argued that the Fourth Circuit's decision against Cox had improperly expanded the scope of contributory copyright infringement.
This connection highlights a broader legal debate about the proper scope of secondary liability for copyright infringement in the digital age. The central questions are:

• What degree of knowledge is necessary for a platform to be held liable for its users' actions?
• How should courts balance the protection of copyright holders with the need for a functioning internet that is not stifled by excessive liability for platforms?

Click to expand...

Although Sony v. Cox and Greer v. Moon both concern contributory copyright infringement by online platforms, there are strong arguments for why a decision in Sony might not directly control or affect the outcome in Greer. The most significant reasons relate to the factual differences, the specific legal issues under review, and the different legal precedent applied in each case.

1. Different defendants and types of "platforms"
The nature of the defendants' businesses is a key distinction.

• Sony v. Cox: The defendant is an internet service provider (ISP). ISPs provide the underlying internet connection and infrastructure that users may utilize for both legal and infringing purposes. The legal standard for contributory infringement applied to ISPs is shaped by the DMCA safe harbors, which were intended to balance liability with the need for a functioning internet. The ISP's role is largely passive, providing network access rather than managing or hosting specific content.
• Greer v. Moon: The defendants are a website operator and the website itself (Kiwi Farms). Websites are content platforms that actively host and manage user content, unlike ISPs. This distinction means the defendant's conduct and legal obligations are viewed differently by courts.
  

2. Different legal standards for "material contribution"
The type of behavior alleged as contributing to infringement is very different.

• Sony v. Cox: The core legal question revolves around whether an ISP's failure to terminate known repeat infringers constitutes "material contribution" to the infringement. Cox argues that simply failing to act is not enough, and that an ISP must take affirmative steps to foster the infringement.
• Greer v. Moon: The Tenth Circuit's decision focused on the website operator's alleged active, non-passive behavior. Moon did not merely permit infringement; he allegedly encouraged it by refusing a takedown notice and then mockingly reposting the correspondence on the site. This was viewed as an active step that encouraged infringement, distinguishing the case from passive platform activity.

3. Different legal precedent
The courts in each case relied on different Supreme Court precedents to reach their conclusions.

• Sony v. Cox: The ISP relies on precedent like the 1984 Sony v. Universal Studios case and the 2023 Twitter v. Taamneh case, arguing that providing general-purpose tools or infrastructure capable of non-infringing uses (like an internet connection) does not create liability.
• Greer v. Moon: The Tenth Circuit, in its ruling against Moon, looked at the operator's alleged encouragement of infringement. The court found that this conduct went beyond passively hosting content, which aligned with the Supreme Court's reasoning in the 2005 case MGM v. Grokster.

4. Different rulings on DMCA safe harbor
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has been central to the litigation against Cox, but less so in Greer.

• Sony v. Cox: A key issue has been whether Cox forfeited its DMCA safe harbor protections by failing to implement a repeat infringer policy.
• Greer v. Moon: The DMCA safe harbor was not a factor. The plaintiff's takedown notice was rejected by the site operator, and the court found the alleged acts of encouragement to be outside the scope of safe harbor protection.

The net result
The distinct facts and legal arguments mean that a Supreme Court ruling in Sony v. Cox could be narrowly tailored to address the duties of ISPs under contributory infringement law without changing the outcome in Greer. A ruling in Sony might focus on the question of whether a purely passive or reactive failure to terminate access is enough for liability. In contrast, the Greer case focuses on a web platform operator's active encouragement and defiance of takedown requests.

Click to expand...

The Repeated Meme said:

It is 100% AI.

View attachment 7962691
Compare to Hardin's filing:
View attachment 7962705

Click to expand...

Debbie Macomber said:

Ew, I felt dirty just prompting and copypasting AI

Click to expand...

Pedophobe said:

It's not even accurate. The machine doesn't realize the parties to the Sony case cited Greer first.

Click to expand...

Bill Evans 45 said:

My money's on AI. No plights, it's very neutral and impersonal. When has Greer ever used words like akin, induce, immunize in past filings?

Click to expand...