TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
edit:
February 28th, @04:23PM
| Public Citizen overlooks court jurisdiction over the host
The judge got jurisdiction because the web sites hosting company(Dynadot) is in the US. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| "The judge got jurisdiction because the web sites hosting company(Dynadot) is in the US."
what does that have to do with it?
You never cease to amaze me, did you even read the article? I am not a lawyer, but even I can see a lot of problems with this case.
1. The judge acted too swiftly, without knowing if he even had jurisdiction.
2. The web hosting company should have challenged the order.
3. Since when do foreign companies get fast trak (I believe it is called exparte,but could be wrong) service from a judge.
4. Closing the whole site was overkill, and probably not legal
just a few
--
BlooMe |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
February 28th, @05:44PM
| said by woody7  :1. The judge acted too swiftly, without knowing if he even had jurisdiction. The article posted on DSLR a week or two ago said the bank asserted copyright infringement. Federal court has jurisdiction.
said by woody7 :2. The web hosting company should have challenged the order. If I was the hosting company and someone (not even the court) said one of my customers was hosting stolen, copyrighted materials why would I have even the slightest desire to challenge that? EDIT to add: When the materials openly claim to be stolen by a former employee, and bear the owner's logo, etc?
said by woody7 :4. Closing the whole site was overkill, and probably not legal I remember from the article a week or two ago, the site owner played coy, dodging the issue until it was too late.
Mark |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | You remember incorrectly. They were railroaded, plain and simple.
The whole case is BS on a bunch of levels and legal issues.
If there is any justice left in the world, it should be swiftly overturned. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to amigo_boy
"The article posted on DSLR a week or two ago said the bank asserted copyright infringement. Federal court has jurisdiction."
Just because someone "asserts" something, doesn't it have to be proven/disproven?
"If I was the hosting company and someone (not even the court) said one of my customers was hosting stolen, copyrighted materials why would I have even the slightest desire to challenge that? EDIT to add: When the materials openly claim to be stolen by a former employee, and bear the owner's logo, etc?"
Other than hosting child pornography I thought that you couldn't hold the hosting company libel? and Isn't that kind of presumptuous for a judge to take the word of the company without even them having complained to the authorities?Wheres the crime without a police report? So a business says that it has private information placed on a website illegally and the court didn't ask for some kind of proof that a crime had been even committed? I believe that there is some kind of process, and It probably wasn't fully followed.l Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :The judge got jurisdiction because the web sites hosting company(Dynadot) is in the US. That gives the court personal jurisdiction over Dynadot. It does not give them personal jurisdiction over Wikilieaks, nor (more importantly) subject matter jurisdiction over the case, which appears to involve two foreign organizations over an act committed in a foreign country (Sweden). |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| reply to woody7
said by woody7 :Just because someone "asserts" something, doesn't it have to be proven/disproven? They display the materials as originating from the bank(!).
said by woody7 :Other than hosting child pornography I thought that you couldn't hold the hosting company libel? I think the issue is that the bank claimed the web site was unresponsive to requests to remedy the matter outside of court.
Some will say "but they didn't identify who they were, or what they wanted." I read the email exchange and all I see is wikileaks playing a cat-and-mouse game. The end result is that that they should have put the bank's attorney in touch with an attorney (any attorney).
Mark |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Did you all read the latest news from the judge? 
--
BlooMe |
|
