woosh yourself (1 in 20)
Being a plaintiff in a case doesn't mean your entire life is up for review, especially if it's in nebulous ways like it is in this case, where the evidence includes "expectations of financial rewards" (whether or not you stand to profit from a civil suit should not enter into decisions about whether or not that is meritorious. Sometimes greedy people get wronged too) and a shirt with the word "cunt" on it (the assertion that wearing a shirt with an epithet on it means you allow people to apply that epithet to you is so flabbergastingly stupid that I am hoping the judge entertains this evidence for some reason unknown to me. The article makes it seem like the defense is claiming that it's okay for him to have called her "cunt" because one time, she wore a shirt with the word on it. As her work supervisor!? That's like saying it's okay to send out a memo entitled "Re: Niggers" and the play innocent because both your black employees listen to NWA).
While it may behoove the court to investigate potentially damning evidence, no such evidence is even being alleged to exist here. The defense allegations seem to be attempts to discredit her character, not her case, which is the biggest danger of these things. The court does not get access to your entire life to rule on the veracity of an otherwise well documented claim.
While it is indeed up to the judge's ultimate discretion to decide what is and what is not relevant, in this case that discretion is wrong. So what if she said she loved her supervisor? That doesn't mean he gets to grope her at work. They could have been fucking like rabbits after hours but she still gets to draw any lines of consent she wants to, and if he didn't like it, well then he can just move on to the next class member: seems to be what he did anyway
See, that also confuses me. Because piracy has always been something that affects MEDIA sales: not theater tickets. If anti-piracy organizations a have successfully finagled the dialogue so that the media acts like it is, that's a problem. The weakness the huge anti-piracy apparatus had was that their ad campaigns featuring teary eyed boom mike operators were clearly full of shit because pretty much everyone gets paid off out of the box office returns. Once the budget is covered, the rest of the money: dvd sales, merchandise, etc. gets paid to the studios, with perhaps some small amount paid on residuals (which don't pay any movie crew member's rent) and perhaps other perks (partial merchandising rights etc.) for high profile perfomers/directors. And so anti piracy advocacy has always been about the studios.
However, if there really is someone going around and claiming that box office returns are hurting because of piracy, that needs to be nipped in the bud. Piracy is a war on DVD sales, not on ticket sales. If there is a relationship, it needs to be sussed out thoroughly, before we get legislators to swallow the lie that ALL revenue streams are under threat because the hackers are breaking into our mainframes and stealing all our internets and posting the finished cut of the movie plus all DVD extras BEFORE THE SCRIPT IS EVEN WRITTEN.
Finally, the interaction of photons with electrons is well documented: it is the physical basis for the absorption of visible light. If you have some other explanation, me and my colleagues would be very interested to hear it.
If, on the other hand, the defense wishes to use the email records as a defense, and the plaintiff disputes the veracity of these records, I can see the judge ordering access to the records to check on their veracity. If the plaintiff fails to provide these, then toss the case out: I have no problem with that. However, requiring a priori access to a person's correspondence at the outset of a case for no reason than to provide a judge with evidence outside the context of the court seems downright unconscionable.
And, as is often the case in these hearings, you can't say someonecopied you if there are a million things they could have copied. Apple didn't invent the "small rectangular touch screen." Pocket PCs, tablets, Game Boys, PDAs, laptops, and books are all things which could be said to have influenced the design of the phone which predate Apple by forever. You insist that the only reason we think "obviously that's the only way you can make a smartphone" is because Apple did it first, I call bullshit: that IS the only way you can make a smart phone, aside from, say, the Sidekick or something else dumb. What do you propose instead, a VirtualBoy headset?