theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
Except, they didn't need to prove the distribution. He never denies actually distributing it. The fact that it was on his website proves distribution.
|
jurisdiction.
Moving the case to CA, instead of holding it in NJ. That is the whole point, and one of the reasons the judge okayed it. Jurisdiction for internet cases can be moved to another venue if the prosecution can sufficiently prove connection to another state.
That is why they asked for twitter accounts as well, because direct contact (not just site hits) stands a lot better in the jurisdictional approach.
|
Which was the second arguement they made. Not the first, which is what we were currently discussing, no?
Though unless it's like 50% i'm confused why sony thinks this would help them jurisdiction wise, unless like I said earlier, they plan to bring someone else into the lawsuit who lives in Caifornia.
Seems like fishing, just based on the fact that Cali is where the hackers like to hangout.
|
It's two-fold. It's not separate.
One, because CA courts will be a better venue for Sony, advantage wise;
and two, to prove more than just distribution, but large scale distribution...and even malice.
For Sony, they want the case held in CA, and they want compensation based on how much distribution occurred. Two reasons, both coinciding with the IP use as they describe in the subpoena.
|
I get WHY they want it to be tried in California. It's just a huge stretch of an arguement.
It's also a huge stretch to use the IP numbers in penalty hearings.
