Then there are the idiots who turn on their phones in front of you, blinding you, to make or receive a call or an SMS and talk their head off.
It's a fast way to get kicked out of a theatre, actually... I've even seen it happen, thankfully only a couple of times, but I think when the attendees know that the theatre doesn't tolerate it, that tends to keep most everyone in line with regards to theatre etiquette. Usually, they will even have a commercial during the commercials before the film starts that addresses one aspect or another of theatre etiquette such as texting on a phone or talking during a movie that makes people aware that it is unacceptable.
I have a home theatre setup at my place... large screen, an old-fashioned popcorn maker, comfortable seating and I *STILL* prefer going to the theatre for certain movies.
While that may (or may not) be a defense against having to actually *pay* damages, being awarded damages for being sued for piracy does not depend on whether or not you are innocent of the accusation, or even that it only *may* have been you who had done it, but only because it is unreasonable for the accuser to conclude that you may have done it in the first place because you do not actually live there.
My point being that the bar for getting awarded damages for the accused is actually pretty high... at least it will, however, ensure that the studios are suing somebody who lives at the right address.
Maryam Monsef, Trudeau's cabinet minister in question, was quite young when her family went to Afghanistan from Iran, and as she grew older, she had forgotten about the relocation and believed that Afghanistan was where she was originally from. Her parents did not correct this matter when she filled in "Afghanistan" as her place of birth on her application form for refugee status, and at the time, this was true to the best of her knowledge. When her mother since admitted to her that she was actually born in Iran, it would certainly have invalidated her otherwise legitimate status as a refugee on a technicality, since there was false information declared on the application form. Trudeau, however, saw the matter differently, saying that people should conflate this situation with "very deliberate acts of omission or dishonesty in trying to get Canadian citizenship through fraudulent declarations or attestations." Monsef could be considered extraordinarily lucky in this regard, however, because it is certainly the case that some people's citizenship has been revoked for the exact same reasons.... and it is inarguably unfair to those other people in that regard, but by all standards in Canada, Monsef herself is *not* an illegal immigrant.
So, unfair, most certainly... but not against the law. If being unfair were actually illegal, the world would be extraordinarily different from what it is.
That's a lame joke...
I see what you did there.
Every other report that I can find of this news anywhere on the web links back to Sammobile, who says that they can somehow "exclusively confirm" this, but does not mention *how*, exactly, that they were able to confirm it... The only reasons that I can imagine that they would not give this information are if they had acquired it by doing something of questionable legality and almost certainly unethical, or else they are just making shit up.
Maybe it's bullshit, and maybe not... but something's definitely not right here, and I think it's socially irresponsible to propagate this kind of story when it can't be confirmed.
Still wrong premise, the court doesn't prove anything, the plaintiff has to prove it
That depends on whether the defendant is in a civil or criminal case.
... posting hyperlinks to pirated copies of material is only legal provided it is done without knowledge that they are unauthorized versions
How is a someone who has been taken to court over this but never knew that the content they linked to was infringing supposed to prove that they didn't know that the content was unauthorized?
Or, assuming that they are treated as innocent until proven guilty, how is the court supposed to prove that a person knew that the content they wanted to link to was unauthorized to get a conviction?
While I honestly do admire the apparent theoretical intent of this kind of this law, because there's no way to know what goes on inside anyone else's head, I can't see how this sort of thing can hope to work as its wording might suggest.
A holding company is a thing where you hand an accomplice the goods while the policeman searches you.