| Kasz216 said: You do realize you were wrong though right. People can be charged for crimes with that information and singled out for prosecution. In fact, when sony was first denied the supeonas... that was the main reason for the supeonas. They were denied them because of Hotz legal team fighting it. |
You do realize that a court can deny a subpeona without needing someone to fight it, correct?
"Court holds that to obtain such information, in light of First Amendment concerns, "the party seeking the information must demonstrate, by a clear showing on the record, that four requirements are met: (1) the subpoena seeking the information was issued in good faith and not for any improper purpose, (2) the information sought relates to a core claim or defense, (3) the identifying information is directly and materially relevant to that claim or defense, and (4) information sufficient to establish or to disprove that claim or defense is unavailable from any other source." Finding that the corporation failed to satisfy this "high burden," the Court quashed the subpoena."
I don't know if you're playing a semantics game here kasz, because while yes you can be CHARGED, the case will be thrown out....you will never be CONVICTED. I don't know why you'd choose to focus on what's chargeable when it's obvious the discussion is talking about something a little more tangible.
Using subpoena'd evidence for a reason other than the case at hand breaks the above requirements.....And they will lose both cases.
Watching the youtube, or downloading the file, or visiting his homepage...none of it proves any illegal activity or breach of the DMCA. And yes, AGAIN, they would need to subpeona the IPs for this reason in order to use that information in a case against them.
The only conflicting passage in your link is a very unprofessional, "the judge took Sony at its word, but I don't". Like,.... seriously? THAT IS THE LAW. Doing anything to the people with those IPs would be the biggest mistake Sony could make, both for this case and their image.
How is this even being argued? It is the most illogical argument you could make. It's like me saying, "I have a gun and I'm going to shoot you", and then someone argues, "Not if you shoot yourself in the face".
