Control Freaks

 Latest

Liberty News Control Freaks
Privacy News Bollox Britain
2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016   2017  
Jan-March   April-June   July-Sept   Oct-Dec   Latest  


  Patent trolls fail action to censor critics...

A US Court Rules That EFF's Stupid Patent of the Month Post Is Protected Speech


Link Here 21st November 2017

  Electronic Frontier Foundation A federal judge has ruled that EFF need not obey an Australian injunction ordering EFF to take down a Stupid Patent of the Month blog post and never speak of the patent owner's intellectual property again.

It all started when Global Equity Management (SA) Pty Ltd (GEMSA)'s patent was featured as the June 2016 entry in our Stupid Patent of the Month blog series. GEMSA wrote to EFF accusing us of false and malicious slander. It subsequently filed a lawsuit and obtained an injunction from a South Australia court purporting to require EFF to censor itself. We declined and filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaration that EFF's post is protected speech.

The court agreed, finding that the South Australian injunction can't be enforced in the U.S. under a 2010 federal law that took aim against libel tourism, a practice by which plaintiffs--often billionaires, celebrities, or oligarchs--sued U.S. writers and academics in countries like England where it was easier to win a defamation case. The Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act ( SPEECH Act ) says foreign orders aren't enforceable in the United States unless they are consistent with the free speech protections provided by the U.S. and state constitutions, as well as state law.

The court analyzed each of GEMSA's claims for defamation, and found [n]one of these claims could give rise to defamation under U.S. and California law, and accordingly EFF would not have been found liable for defamation under U.S. and California law. For example, GEMSA's lead complaint was that EFF had called its patent stupid. GEMSA protested that its patent is not in fact stupid but the court found that this was clearly protected opinion. Moreover, the court found that the Australian court lacked jurisdiction over EFF, and that this constitutes a separate and independent reason that EFF would prevail under the SPEECH Act.

Furthermore, the court found that the Australian order was not enforceable under the SPEECH Act because U.S. and California would provide substantially more First Amendment protection by prohibiting prior restraints on speech in all but the most extreme circumstances, and providing additional procedural protections in the form of California's anti-SLAPP law.

After its thorough analysis, the court declared (1) that the Australian Injunction is repugnant to the United States Constitution and the laws of California and the Unites States; and (2) that the Australian injunction cannot be recognized or enforced in the United States.

The decision was a default judgment. GEMSA, which has three pending patent lawsuits in in the Northern District of California, had until May 23 to respond to our case. That day came and went without a word. While GEMSA knows its way around U.S. courts--having filed dozens of lawsuits against big tech companies claiming patent infringement--it failed to respond to ours.

 

 Offsite Article: Fully loaded advice...


Link Here 21st November 2017
arms of the british governmentjpg logo UK Government Publishes Advice on 'Illicit Streaming Devices'

See article from torrentfreak.com

 

  Element of doubt...

Copyright trolls take a beating in Spain


Link Here 11th November 2017
Spanish flagA Spanish judge has dealt a blow to copyright trolls in Spain. In a first of its kind ruling, the court dismissed an example legal case due to a lack of evidence.

The Commercial Court of Donostia dismissed the claim against an alleged file-sharer due to a lack of evidence. Copyright company Dallas Buyers Club identified the infringer through an IP-address, but according to Judge Pedro José Malagón Ruiz, this is not good enough.

The ruling says that there is no way to know whether the defendant was the P2P user or not, because an IP address only identifies the person who subscribed to the Internet connection, not the user who made use of the connection at a certain moment, copyright lawyer David Bravo tells TorrentFreak.

A relative or a guest could have been using the network, or even someone accessing the wifi if it was open, he adds.

In addition, the Judge agreed with the defense that there is no evidence that the defendant actively made the movie available. This generally requires a form of intent. However, BitTorrent clients automatically share files with others, whether it's the intention of the user or not.

In other words, these BitTorrent transfers are not necessarily an act of public communication, therefore, they are not infringing any copyrights.

 

2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016   2017  
Jan-March   April-June   July-Sept   Oct-Dec   Latest  

melonfarmers icon
 

Top

Home

Index

Links

Email
 

UK

World

Media

Info

US
 

Film Cuts

Nutters

Liberty

Cutting Edge

Shopping
 

Sex News

Sex+Shopping

Advertise
 


Liberty News

Privacy News
 

Control Freaks

Bollox Britain
 


Adult DVD+VoD

Online Shop Reviews
 

Online Shops

New Releases & Offers
 
Sex Machines
Fucking Machines
Adult DVD Empire
Adult DVD Empire
Simply Adult
30,000+ items in stock
Low prices on DVDs and sex toys
Simply Adult
Hot Movies
Hot Movies