I feel confident that if the defendant had had a competent expert to rebut the Malibu phony experts, defendant would have won.

The real story is that defendant didn't have his own expert to counter Patzer's BS

Actually whoever the new guy is, I don't find the site to be "improved" at all; seems a little crummy. The story was butchered and incorrectly interpreted, and the all important software for interaction seems less interactive.

But what do I know?

As to my absence I've been a bit overwhelmed by work stuff, sorry about that, it's no excuse :)

The story as published implies that the ruling overruled the lower court on the 3 issues. In fact, it was agreeing with the trial court on the third issue -- that the sporadic instances of Vimeo employees making light of copyright law did not amount to adopting a "policy of willful blindness".

Thank you for so astutely reading that thread; I thought maybe I was losing my mind :) I keep disagreeing with him, and he keeps saying we're on the same page :)

Yeah that's neither right nor left, it's the universal language of greedy bloodsuckers.

The fact that Democrats support something doesn't negate the possibility of something being right wing. The Democrats are not ideologically pure, or ideologically homogenous, and very few of them can be considered "left".

To me, pretending that copyright is only about property rights, and ignoring the fact that copyright was also supposed to be about free speech and about making material available for free to the public after a limited time, is definitely "right wing".

As I said, the decision has nothing to do with how much copying makes it a copyright infringement. It has to do with the fact that there is no evidence that John Doe copied anything from anybody.

The decision isn't about what is or is not copyright infringement. It's about whether you can sue somebody without any evidence that they did in fact commit a copyright infringement.

Exactly. Would have been nice for judges to start doing this 11 years ago, but glad they've come around.

I could tell that you're not a lawyer. Your total ignorance of the law was a dead giveaway.

This isn't changing the rules. This is following the rules.

See my article in the ABA's Judges Journal about how judges had been bending the rules for the RIAA. "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless: Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigation". The Judges' Journal, Judicial Division of American Bar Association. Summer 2008 edition, Part 1 of The Judges Journals' 2-part series, "Access to Justice".