|
|
Posted by FatKat on 09/20/05 18:10
Don M. wrote:
> "FatKat" wrote in message news:1127224407.515205.244520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Don M. wrote:
> > > "FatKat" wrote in message news:1127192910.939296.26400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Don M. wrote:
> > > > > "FatKat" wrote in message
> news:1127158489.599470.285420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Technomage Hawke wrote:
> > > > > > > I wonder, if I get sued by paramount pictures, can I counter sue based on
> > > > > > > malicious prosecution and filing a frivolous lawsuit?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Why should this lawsuit be considered less frivolous than any of the
> > > > > > others filed by industry groups? That said, it's unlikely they'd
> > > > > > seriously pursue the case once they were sure you really were blind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You seem to imply that lawyers have a heart and that someone's disability could
> keep them
> > > > > away from their loot... When did hell freeze over and why wasn't I notified?
> > > > >
> > > > No, I said that nobody wants to be seen in the media beating up on the disabled.
> > >
> > > They've sued the young, the old and the dead so far. What better example to set than
> "not
> > > even the blind is exempt if you engage in illegal downloading [sic]"? They would love
> to
> > > indirectly intimidate as many people as possible.
> >
> > The young and the dead aren't much of a problem; with the dead, you're
> > suing an estate - it really happens all the time. As for kids, that's
> =============
>
> They've accused a person who was long dead, of copyright infringement. There were no
> grounds for suing that person's estate.
Hard to say, you've just given me a blurb of an anecdote of what may be
a real case. Apparently somebody thought there were grounds - and
should have realized that the administrators of an estate may have more
energy to defend the case than an old or infirm defendant.
> The horror stories people read in the news about other common people being sued are
> designed to scare them into not sharing.
How much of the horror is just that - a story?
> I really think "suing the blind" would convince
> many sharers they are not safe from being sued. IMHO, of course.
We all know that in theory, nobody is safe from being sued. Of course
nobody wants to spark the public outcry that might lead to
politically-imposed limits on liability.
>
>
> > also a red herring - everybody knows that the parents are going to pay.
> > When you think of those stories of young children in on-line
> > chatrooms, an RIAA lawsuit is remarkably cheap.
>
> There's no such thing as a starving lawyer, is there, so I guess US$7500 sounds cheap to
> some, but what do you consider "remarkably cheap"?
A myth - it's hardly LA Law for most lawyers. Why do you think they're
chasing after those ambulances left and right. The world is full of
starving lawyers.
> AFAIK, suing parents for copyright infringement doesn't necessarily prevent their kids
> from using chatrooms;
AFAIK, parents realize that there's money at stake, and are encouraged
to take a more proactive role in their children's on-line activities.
> they can go in without any copyrighted material, can they not?
Sure, there's no copywright on the explicit or suggestive language that
children can read or write on these chat-rooms. It's the parental
oversight that becomes the issue.
> Otherwise, why not file preemptive lawsuits against parents of young kids?
>
Because you can only sue for damages after the fact. You can enjoin
children from pirating music, but tha would be unnecessary to the
extent that laws on the books already bar that behavior.
> > >
> > <snip really old and tired law jokes>
> >
> Yet I never seem to get tired of them.
> In any case, there may be new ones here: http://www.ahajokes.com/lawyer_jokes.html
>
>
> Don
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|