Litigation Fund

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
SteelPlatedHeart said:
lol lmao
View attachment 5828958
Click to expand...
  • Engages in or instigates actions that cause harm to Epik or other customers;
  • Violates the privacy or publicity rights of another user or any other person or entity, or breaches any duty of confidentiality that you owe to another user or any other person or entity;
  • Promotes, encourages, engages, or displays cruelty to humans or animals;
  • Promotes, encourages, or engages in terrorism, violence or hatred against people, animals, or property;
While the policies themselves aren't terribly disagreeable in principle, it's not like that's what matters here. If an actor has shown itself to be arbitrary and petty, masking that behind general terms doesn't change the fact that it's just Arbitrary Termination, now with extra steps. In the end, it's still Faggotmeister the Archon of Internet Packages that calls the shots, whose default reaction was to blatantly disregard net neutrality etc.

Anyway, this is, in all honesty, a Massive Win. I feel a good year is ahead of us.
:null:🔪
 
Null said:
I didn't have to sign an NDA but the outstanding issue is resolved.

- They retract.
- They issue a business certified copy of the retraction.
- They help me reclaim a domain that would otherwise be lost for good.

Someone else hasn't been returning our certified mail and now with this retraction there is zero basis to their claims. Not retracting now is proof of actual malice. I'm not asking for much here.
Click to expand...
This is the power of a warchest. Didnt even need to a full lawsuit. People have long thought josh was some broke ass nigger on the wrong side of the politically correct so it didnt matter if they defamed him and the farm because lol lawsuit are for people with money. Wave that warchest around and the only left to oppose the farm will be the ideologues and the crazies. Companies will usually not fucking play around if lawsuit is a real possibility.

Seriously null with this money your sitting on you should be much more litigious.
 
wow I almost had to take off BOTH socks to count the number of seconds the new buttmad about the latest victory set me back from hitting the farms
 
LiquidKid said:
But but I thought this wasn’t defamation. I thought you couldn’t defame a website. I thought there was no defendant.
Click to expand...
Corps are people in US law for better or worse. So you can defame companies and they can represent themselves in court. Like with Lolcow LLC. for example.
 
Now I'm waiting for Rackets to explain, several weeks from now when it makes its way through the drunken haze, that he wasn't wrong about the Farms having no case. It was just Epik not wanting to pay to win in court and accusing someone of hosting CSAM (or definitely literally sucking little boys' cocks) is heckin valid free speech protected by the First Amendment.
 
Null said:
I didn't have to sign an NDA but the outstanding issue is resolved.

- They retract.
- They issue a business certified copy of the retraction.
- They help me reclaim a domain that would otherwise be lost for good.

Someone else hasn't been returning our certified mail and now with this retraction there is zero basis to their claims. Not retracting now is proof of actual malice. I'm not asking for much here.
Click to expand...
Good! Hopefully they say you weren't joking around and that they could eventually lose. Now it will be to waiting to see if they will retract. Will you continue with your litigation?
 
Null said:
I didn't have to sign an NDA but the outstanding issue is resolved.

- They retract.
- They issue a business certified copy of the retraction.
- They help me reclaim a domain that would otherwise be lost for good.

Someone else hasn't been returning our certified mail and now with this retraction there is zero basis to their claims. Not retracting now is proof of actual malice. I'm not asking for much here.
Click to expand...
steady as she goes
 
Null said:
They were not. The retraction handles both claims.
Click to expand...

It'd still be nice to make it explicit in the certified version, instead of implicit. If we noticed it, the people coping and reading "implications" will too, and they'll let the innuendo stand. You aren't dealing with honest people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom