Masataka, But the phrase “or linking to the domain” Includes hundreds, possibly thousands, of unwitting certain parties: anyone who operates search services, or permits people to post links in discussion groups, for example, would be included. I think I am simply right. The lawsuit is contradictory and overreaching. But worse, the court issued a nonsensical judgment, whether to deliver it or not, and that is a travesty. -mel
On May 8, 2022, at 6:29 AM, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Mel Beckman wrote:
The plaintiff’s won a default judgement, because the defendants didn’t show up in court. But they could not have shown up in court, because they were only listed as "John Does" in the lawsuit. Thus no defendant could have "actual knowledge" that they were sued,
As the defendants are those identified as "d/b/a Israel.tv, as the owners and operators of the website, service and/or applications (the “Website”) located at or linking to the domain www.Israel.TV;", you are simply wrong.
For the court to then approve sanctions against innocent non-parties to the suit is a logical contradiction.
Wrong.
Those knowingly actively cooperating with the defendants are not innocent at all though DMCA makes some passive cooperation innocent.
Masataka Ohta